Friday, August 03, 2007
|
|
Mitt Takes the Gloves Off
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
9:58 PM
|
|
Yesterday, Mitt Romney went into Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson’s studio for a conversation about politics. At least it should have been about politics. Instead, Mickelson decided he wanted to grill Romney on the Mormon church and Mormon theology. (I also thought Mickelson’s comments on politics, namely that the President should overrule the Supreme Court when in the President’s opinion the Court oversteps its bounds, were a tad on the screwy side as well.)
Mickelson’s station, WHO, had a video recorder on the governor that was recording his off-air comments, something that Romney was unaware of. On the air, Mickelson stated that according to Mormon theology, Romney should have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church because he was once pro-choice. Off the air, Romney tried to gently tell Mickelson that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Although I’ve never heard even a snippet of Mickelson’s show before today, I bet Mickelson holding forth on something he knows nothing about happens on a not infrequent basis. The off air exchange (that once again Romney didn’t know was being taped) was at times heated. WHO today posted the footage on its website.
Dirty pool aside, I don’t think Romney has looked better at any time during the campaign. Firm, decisive, authoritative – that’s the guy I know. While it’s a shame that some members of the media will decide that Romney should have to defend his faith and insist that he campaign for theologist-in-chief as well as commander-in-chief, it was wonderful to see Romney making such a strong case for his candidacy and the proper role of religion in the campaign.
The footage above starts a bit slow, but give it time. I promise you it heats up.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
But I'd like to thank him for doing so.
Hey...I've personally never been "FOR" Mitt Romney like for instance Hugh has. I have no qualms about voting for a man who happens to be a Mormon either.
But viewing this video definitely put Mitt over the top (for me) as a real contender for the office. He shows grit and more than holds his own against Jan Mickelson (whoever that is). And it has nothing to do with Mitt saying he won't try to impose his religion's restrictions on alcohol on us either.
Hopefully this Mickelson guy disclosed to the Romney campaign before posting this. It would at least have been the honorable thing to do considering he told Mitt it was "off the record", and then he puts it "on the record" by releasing it to the public via the web. |
|
running dogs of the left are too craven to face anyone with scruples on anything approaching a level playing field. The craven mavens are only interested in back-stabbing and long-range sniping...
And the reason they hate religions with morals is that they know their deeds are evil and they hate the light (reread John Chapter 1 at "www.biblegateway.com").
Hugh had a great show tonight... ;-)
|
|
|
Mitt is a nut. A secular argument against abortion? Geez, open another bottle of water or screw the lid on and off a few more times, put your arms over your head again and again. Martin Short's sweating skit couldn't do a better job of a frazzled neurotic. |
|
|
You know, I've supported Romney for a while now by default (he's been the least "bad"). One of my biggest complaints about him was that he was plastic, that most of his lines were well rehearsed and focused grouped. The only thing I can say now is that he actually really impressed me here. He was firm but respectful and answered the questions directly. I don't know what Mickelson's intent was in releasing this video, but I do think it will only help the Governor. |
|
That is illogical -- those of us on the left hate religion because -- judging with religious standards -- we see our own action to be evil? So we BELIEVE it all, according to you, but we ignore its strictures, only to feel overwhelming, what guilt? Remorse? Nonsense. Most people on the left do not "hate" religion. I would say that I agree with Marx who called religion the "heart of a heartless world" -- that it is likely too difficult for many people to get through life without faith. That's good for them. But I also have a problem with a) authoritarianism of any sort, and b) demonstrable falsehoods. So, when people believe things based solely on their preachers' say so or because the Bible says so, I think that is harmful to them and harmful to society -- because often the things they believe are demonstrably false (e.g. creationism).
That is not hate -- it is a form of love, and it is also a republican worldview (small 'r') -- because citizens must be able to face the truth. |
|
|
|
|
Look, I know Jan Mickelson was TRYING to do the right thing, but that was just way out of line. It was good to see Mitt stand up for himself, but it was so painful to listen to Jan grill Romney about Romney's beliefs. Who's the best arbiter of what Mitt Romney believes, Romney or someone else? |
|
Mitt supporter since Dec '04
Wearing a Mitt shirt today strangely enough.
Seeing Mitt handle himself under fire in an "off the record" environment was fantastic.
Cool, poised, firm, fair, can't give him enough props. I hope a lot of people see this video. It'll help with independents and the farther right at the same time. |
|
Mitt was impressive! Standing firm in his personal beliefs while understanding the difference between personal belief and governance.
Mickelson came off as arogant and unwilling to reason. Even as Mitt would offer a rebuttal, Mickelson seemed incapable acknowledging his errors. |
|
by Glenn Beck too. It was about the flat tax. I will give Beck limited credit in I think he is a jerk on the flat tax to all politicians, but it was still out of hand.
I was impressed that Mitt calmly explained that the American people would not tollerate the superrich not paying any taxes (which is what Beck's flat tax would mean) and the middle class paying the vast bulk of taxes. |
|
|
I loved it! Mitt's campaign posted it on you tube so apparently they liked it too. |
|
Mitt held his own and defended his position well. Frankly I thought Mitt was a bit of a phony, but he raised his stature with me a lot with his arguments. They were civil and forceful.
Maybe I have been too hard on the Governor. |
|
|
got taken to school. Well done Mitt. Thanks for the post Dean. |
|
|
Mitt was very impressive. He's exactly right. The whole George Stephanopolis issue is just silly. Mormons believe the 2nd Coming (or when Christ appears to the whole world in His glory), will be at the Mount of Olives! Now, Mormons also believe that he will appear in Missouri BEFORE that time to meet with few faithful mormons. That is NOT the 2nd coming. They also believe that Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 - Is that Jesus's 2nd coming? NO, his 2nd coming is when he appears to the whole world in all His glory, not when he makes little appearances to individuals or small groups of people. Therefore, Mitt is correct on Mormon theology. Mormons do believe the 2nd Coming is in Jerusalem, NOT Missouri. |
|
Yeah, there are some folks out there who still haven't figured out we're electing a Commander-in-Thief, not a Theologian-in-Chief.
If these folks think they have a theological divide with LDS, wait until they find out what living under the Islamic caliphate is all about !
Mitt looked great in handling the situation, and
Brightwinger makes a good point about how it appears Mickleson was hoping to catch Romney in a relaxed "gotcha !" moment where, say, the Governor was picking a piece of broccoli out of his teeth.
For heaven's sake, at least the guy who does the "Girls Gone Wild" videos asks his subjects to sign a document affirming they know they were being videotaped.
And you know if either the Sam Brownback or Ron Paul campaign got ahold of a hypothetical video of Romney picking broccoli out of his teeth, it might enable them each to sustain their 9th and 10th place "grassroots" campaigns for another...two weeks !
Townhall's own anti-Romney blogger Matt Lewis would have been able to mine that gold for at least a week's worth of "If Mitt has trouble with broccoli, just HOW can we trust him to defeat Al Qaeda ?!" posts. |
|
|
video was going to hurt Romney, I think it backfired. The biggest knocks on Romney thus far have been his geniuneness (or apparent lack thereof) on his positions such as abortion as well as the fear that many have that his mormon faith will be imposed on America. This video dispells both of these issues in my opinion. |
|
|
I agree this is not Mini-Mitt, or "Plastic-Mitt". It is the best I have seen him. Maybe it's that passion that he has not really shown in debates and on the stump. Understandably though, if you have been hammered about your faith for all these months, you ought to take the opportunity to "vent". Mitt did so in manner that showed a controlled frustration with his interviewer. While I'm not sold yet, it sure makes me look at him even closer. |
|
The biggest complaint about Mitt Romney is that he is flip flopper. The fear is that you can't take his words at face value. He might advance other words and actions when it suits him. Is he sincere? Is he steadfast?
These attacks on Mitt have an obious opportunistic quality. They gang up and repeat, and repeat, and repeat. They are mostly soundbite arguments.
Still the questions remain: Who is the real Mitt Romney? Is there a there there? It is ironic that the sins of the Democrats - Kerry, Clinton, and others - are visited on a Republican, Romney. I think Romney is sincere and steadfast. He is the real deal. Yes, it's wise to question, but it's not worldly or smart to be a perpetual cynic. |
|
Go Mr. Romney...
Outstanding.
Like Rudy's focus on the Democrat Negligence as well.
We have some impressive candidates, and we should get united for a strong rebuke of the DNC this 2008. |
|
A rare look at a candidate's true nature...and I liked it alot.
While I'm a "Rudy-Guy" myself (talk about the abortion question, but Rudy gets a pass, because he's Catholic and they don't really follow the rules anyway), I would be perfectly comfortable with Mr. Romney as President.
He's smart, sensible, and a realistic person.
He's right too.
You don't run or govern as a representative of your religion (and it must be terribly frustrating to have to remind interviewers of that simple fact, time after time).
You run for the job, pledging to perform it, as the law dictates.
It was a cheap-tacky-trashy sort of thing this interviewer did, to secretly record the "Off-Air" comments of his guest.
It's a cheap-shot that will likely make Mr. Romney a better candidate from here on out though.
|
|
|
Like that's the choice: kooky LDS theology or an Islamic caliphate. Would you accept a Muslim as President--even if he foreswore those aspects of his faith that conflict with the American way? Maybe you would. I wouldn't. I think a man's faith defines what he is, how he looks at the world, his level of wisdom, and how he makes decisions. When a guy believes in nonsense, then he'll believe nonsense. And I don't want that guy as our CIC. |
|
|
Mitt handled a no-name conservative talk radio kook on a little station in Iowa. Hallelujah... start measuring the Oval Office for new drapes!! |
|
Romney was exactly right about Mormon beliefs.
It was ridiculous to see Mickelson pretend that he understands what being a Mormon means better than does a man who has led a congregation as a Mormon bishop and then, as a Mormon stake president, has led SEVERAL congregations and overseen SEVERAL bishops.
Mitt Romney has been a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint as well as a full-time missionary for it, and Mickelson isn't even a member.
Astonishing. |
|
Wow, Mickelson seems to be saying, if someone from his church were to run for president that he would expect that president to convince or maybe even impose his beliefs into the decisions that all the citizens in the U.S. make. Does that sound a little like the Taliban to you? Is that what those who are against Romney, on the basis of religion are saying? It sure sounds like it. Either that, or Mickelson's church doesn't have any standards and therefore there's Nooo Probleeeem.
No wonder the left worries about the evangelical extremists. They start to sound like, either it's their way, or off with our heads! |
|
|
...confused about what day of the week it was, and therefore what position he currently holds. |
|
...sheds little light (A Pedant in the White House?)
“Firm, decisive, authoritative.” Huh? Sorry, Mr. Barnett, didn’t see it (more like, “testy, petulant, semi-coherent”). Again, the explicit interview ground rules were “ask anything.” So, why the over-reaction when a (pro-life) talk radio host reads from some official (encyclical-like?) LDS statement on abortion support and asks for comment? Mr. Romney seemed to take Mr. Mickelson’s question as a personal affront. Again, why? And why instead of replying in a measured, direct manner, did Romney go into adversarial mode?
Yes, interviewers often ask insidious, demeaning, and indeed, sometimes stupid, questions. So what? Is it now OK for candidates to reply in kind?
///
Mitt’s temperament aside, why does he suggest supremes Roberts and Alito want to overturn Roe v. Wade? Wrongly decided or not, the justices themselves have been fairly ambiguous on questions of the opinion and stare decisis. At any rate, would a president Romney have an “overturn Roe” litmus test for prospective SCOTUS nominees?
|
|
Another thought, my friend, if I may:
When GWB declared "Jesus Christ" was his "favorite political philosopher," back in the primary season of 2000, I knew that he was either craven or ridiculous. You'll remember that Steve Forbes answered the question before Bush, and he cited John Locke. Locke is a perfectly good answer. It is an All-American answer. It is in neat alignment with the Natural Rights strand that is our moral and intellectual heritage. And the question was fantastic because it completely elevated the discourse.
With his answer, Bush swung the discussion back to exploitive posturing or, failing that rather low bar, deluded thinking. For the "political philosophy" of Jesus, at least to the extent ennunciated by Scriptures, is turning your cheek and forgiving your enemies. While these are fine moral qualities for a person, they are not the qualities a great country needs in dangerous times (and yes, some of us knew before 9/11 that this is a dangerous world). And indeed, it turned out that GWB--as friendly and sincere and good-humored as he is--IS deluded. His policy blunders were derived from a decisional apparat that lacks insight and wisdom, which in turn comes from a worldview that is short on reality and long on wishful thinking.
So, yes, we are electing a theologian in chief, at least to the extent one's theology reflects, as it does, one's worldview. And while we Americans do not have a religious test to hold office in this country, the GWB experience confirms yet again that we ignore religosity at our own peril.
|
|
I for one was impressed!! See all you Conservatives? Mitt is the REAL DEAL, and is WONDERFUL in his argumentative style. Duncan Hunter is still who I will support for the nomination (so far), but since my state's primary is later than many states, I suppose the nominee will most likely been chosen by then.
So...look at Mitt Romney -- NO ONE -- even Fred Thompson -- has the Executive experience that Mitt has, and has run companies and cut expenses like Mitt has -- Bain Capital, Salt Lake Olympics - and has governed a "blue" state that was in the red financially, and put Mass. in the black before he left office.
The Mormon issue? Come on. There wasn't a mass conversion in Massachusets was there? I truly believe that it's the Left that has the problem with Mitt being a Mormon, NOT US EVANGELICALS.
If it comes down to a 3-way race between Rudy, Fred and Mitt -- and Duncan Hunter hasn't gotten any traction -- my primary vote will be between Mitt and Fred. |
|
|
Can anyone tell me why I can't view the u tube? What exactly do I need on the computer so that I can see all of these videos? |
|
|
This only reinforced my view of Mitt Romney as a serious candidate for President. He was told it was off the record. The meat of this interview was NOT off the record. Regardless, he defended his beliefs and put to rest the fact that he has backbone. Obviously, Mitt is trying to do the right thing. This interview will not harm his campaign one bit, it will only help. I want a President who can lead a variety of hard issues, War, Imigration, Abortion, Economy, Energy and more. Thank you for helping me see a true leader . . . OFF THE RECORD. |
|
|
|
I thought Mitt did quite well discussing religion and politics. I was impressed with that.
He was however wrong on the more important issue of the Supreme Court and the Constitution. One would think he would know better, since he said he was a student of Cleon Skousen.
Everyone should really read Skousen's book. You will not be sorry you did. |
|
LDS doctrine is not that the Law of Moses will prevail after the 2nd Coming and you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Romney gave any indication of that in his discussion. The Law of Moses was a schoolmaster to bring the Jews unto Christ as Paul states so clearly in Gal 3:24. Jesus will reign in person during the Millenium and will govern under His laws - the Law of the Gospel.
Romney acquitted himself well. He is not running for theologian-in-chief. Romney was tagged as pro-choice simply because he said he wouldn't as a politician interfere with current law (in MA the law is pro-choice) while all the while he was personally opposed to abortion and counselled people in his capacity as a Bishop in the LDS church in accordance with the church's position. He later came to regret that hands off position re his political stance on abortion and took his PERSONAL pro-life stance and made it his POLITICAL stance and backed that change up in public ways as Governor. Any conservative should be pleased with that. It was the same path tread by Reagan whose name is constantly evoked in this primary as voters seek to find some conservative candidate to put his mantle onto.
When discussing LDS doctrine with those theologically opposed to the church non-members frequently lecture us on what our doctrine is. The lectures are invariable wrong - often by gaping margins. Mickleson fell into the same trap by trying to tell a man who had administered the church's doctrines and procedures for many years in local leadership positions what the LDS church's position is. If he had tried to lecture Rudi about abortion or how much of a Presbyterian McCain is or whether Joe Lieberman was entirely faithful to his strain of Judaism - all such lines of questioning would be out of line under Article 6 - it is no different with Mitt. It was impressive to see him handle what became a confrontational and combative position from the interviewer with such articulate assurance.
|
|
|
I have to agree. I also saw the FNC, Gretta interview with his sons. I can not think that anyone who is capable of raising 5 super children would not have the best interests of the country and his children of utmost importance. Contrast that with Rudy. I so like Duncan Hunter but he can not get out of the shadows. |
|
I would seem every local newsperson craves their “Walter Cronkite” moment when what they say or ask changes the course of history. Andy Hiller, a local Boston political reporter, tried to embarrass Candidate George W. Bush with a foreign-policy pop quiz. Jan Mickelson would do well to remember that Hiller’s celebrity was short lived and journalists from both political stripes were soon ridiculing him for his “Jeopardy” type question.
I agree with the assessment that the 'entire' interview highlights a side of Mitt Romney the public has not seen. Those who criticize him for being “too perfect” or “too scripted” can witness a measured toughness that has made him successful.
|
|
Mickelson is slimy to have not told Romney his comments were being recorded.
Did I hear Romney right that he believed Christ would return to the Mount of Olives and "kill the Jews." |
|
ARG has released a poll for CA. Romney is 2nd ahead of Thompson. Please note that ARG is not a Romney friendly poll as a general rule. Further, they gave a break down of the Reg Rep voters and Independent voters who claimed to be likely voters in the Rep Primary.
The Reps in CA only allow Registered Rep voters to vote as I recall (correct me if I am wrong).
Of likely Rep voters it was Rudy 32, Romney 17, Thompson 15, McCain 7 (behind Gingrich). Of Independents it was Rudy 25, Romney 21, Thompson 26, and McCain 6.
With Reps and Ind combined (what will get reported in the MSM) it was Rudy 30, Romney 18, Thompson 18, and McCain 7.
Several things to note.
1. This is a tremendous surge for Romney and indicates he will probably get delegates in selected Congressional districts. CA just became a serious target for Romney. He can compete well on Super T and the ad wars should help him.
2. Romney may be gathering momentum. That is also indicated in the national RAS tracking poll.
3.Including Independents who are not likely to Register as Republicans over states Thompson's numbers at least in CA. In this case ARG is Thompson friendly. Usually it is McCain and Rudy friendly.
4. McCain is in single digits which is confirmed by the national RAS tracking poll.
|
|
|
Considering Romney didn't know he was being recorded, and that the radio guy told him they were off-record during the commercial break, I think his comments were pretty cogent, considering the dumfkopf interview kept trying to talk over him and tell him what LDS beliefs "really" were. I'm impressed with Romney, and think this shoud dispel any idea that he is a phony & scripted. This interview showed anything but. |
|
Wow. My comMITTment is confirmed.
THIS is the Mitt Romney I've supported since he was rumored to be running.
THIS is the strength and character America needs in its Presidency. |
|
heff: "Did I hear Romney right that he believed Christ would return to the Mount of Olives and 'kill the Jews.'"
I didn't hear him say that, and it certainly isn't Mormon doctrine. Latter-day Saint eschatology expects Jesus to return to the Mount of Olives and SAVE the Jews at a moment of terrible crisis.
For Gabby:
The question isn't whether Romney was ever "pro-abortion." As a mainstream Latter-day Saint, and, even more obviously, as a LEADER in the Church entrusted with watching over the membership and teaching the doctrines of the Church and (where necessary) maintaining Church discipline, he could never have been pro-abortion. Where his position has changed is not on the merits of abortion as such, but on the question of how and how much the state ought to intervene regarding abortion.
Mickelson grossly misconstrued and misapplied the statement from the Church. By contrast, Romney, who, as a Mormon leader, has no doubt had to APPLY that statement, had it precisely right.
Trust me on this: I'm in a similar leadership position at this very moment. I know what I'm talking about, and so does Governor Romney. |
|
|
Mitt will start being as forceful towards his RINO opponents, Dem traitors, and assorted international whack jobs as he is towards a radio announcer. |
|
This may be ambush journalism but Jan made the mistake of reading only one LDS statement on abortion and then jumped to a wrong conclusion. I suspect he was voicing a concern that many Non LDS people wondered about.
First if you are not a member of the LDS faith be very careful about focusing on just one statement in interpreting a particular policy or statement. In LDS theology you have to gather all of the comments that pertain to the issue and then apply them to the situation at hand. There are general rules and there are exceptions to general rules.
Romney is exactly right concerning his comments on abortion. As a member you can be excommunicated for encouraging an abortion (in the sense of advocating a particular abortion or paying for one). However, "encouraging" does not apply to politicians who are taking a political position that will be imposed as the law on non Mormons.
The Church is very clear that Mormon politicians have to decide their own positions. Further, in making their decisions they should at least consider the wishes of their voters. I am surprised that Romney did not quote the official position of the Church concerning politicians and their political positions. Mormons definitely believe in separation of Church and State.
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6203d93c8688f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1
Official Position Relationships With Government
"Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."
|
|
Second, Romney is right on "the Second Coming" and "Missouri". Most of what happens in Missouri is after the second coming in Jerusalem. Mormon theology is complex and trying to reduce it to sound bites for a radio talk show host is very tricky. You can't give a complete understanding in 30 seconds of sound bites.
Third, Mitt took classes from Skousen, so did thousands of other students. Dr. Skousen is respected in the Church but not every one agrees with him or his positions. The Ron Paul people will probably appreciate Dr. Skousen.
Fourth, some clarification is necessary on some positions of the Church. I still think Romney needs a friendly 527 to handle that. However, he does not want nor need the focus of his candidacy to shift to all of the doctrinal differences between LDS theology and the various strains of "Orthodox Christianity".
Note to the previous poster. No Mormons do not believe that Jesus will kill the Jews at the second coming. Members of all faiths (and no faiths) who are keeping the 10 commandments will "abide the day".
|
|
This may be ambush journalism but Jan made the mistake of reading only one LDS statement on abortion and then jumped to a wrong conclusion. I suspect he was voicing a concern that many Non LDS people wondered about.
First if you are not a member of the LDS faith be very careful about focusing on just one statement in interpreting a particular policy or statement. In LDS theology you have to gather all of the comments that pertain to the issue and then apply them to the situation at hand. There are general rules and there are exceptions to general rules.
Romney is exactly right concerning his comments on abortion. As a member you can be excommunicated for encouraging an abortion (in the sense of advocating a particular abortion or paying for one). However, "encouraging" does not apply to politicians who are taking a political position that will be imposed as the law on non Mormons.
The Church is very clear that Mormon politicians have to decide their own positions. Further, in making their decisions they should at least consider the wishes of their voters. I am surprised that Romney did not quote the official position of the Church concerning politicians and their political positions. Mormons definitely believe in separation of Church and State.
Official Position Relationships With Government
"Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."
|
|
|
I just can't do it- listen to 20 minutes of romney spin. can someone who listened to it tell me if romney reaffirmed his quest to pull troops out of iraq if general david petraeus reports success in the surge? |
|
|
No - and all Romney said was exactly the same as what Bush has been saying: when the surge works and the situation is stabilized, then we can start drawing down troops in Iraq - surely the end goal of any war. The spin I'm afraid was all yours and clearly anti-Romney. |
|
|
Is this Romney's unplanned JFK moment? I think this exchange is great in that Romney doesn't run away from his beliefs but also gives a logical, decisive and persuasive argument that Romney is not a lackey for the LDS church, but is running for a secular position and will not necessarily adopt the church's positions as his political positions. Although the recording of this exchange may have been intended as an ambush, I'm impressed how Romney comported himself and tore the interviewer's argument to pieces. I'd be curious to see Frank Luntz do a focus group on this exchange like he did during the debate when Romney's religion was attacked. Disclosure: Believing Mormon and Romney supporter. |
|
lowandslow: "the video shows Romney can't handle it when he has to defend his faith"
I don't think it shows anything of the kind, though it does depict Romney as justifiably displeased that a Mormon running for secular political office should constantly have to answer questions about his church and his personal religious beliefs rather than about secular political issues.
Once in a while might not be so bad. But CONSTANTLY?
And to see Mickelson effectively suggesting that he understands Mormonism better than Romney does was like something out of the theater of the absurd. |
|
So...uh...can you provide a little proof, eh sport?
If you read through my comment, you'll see that I'm not a Mitt Romney supporter, but I do enjoy watching a 'so called' interviewer get OWN3D. As far as candidates, I'm patiently waiting for the field to thin before I jump in behind any one particular candidate. I may still go with Guiliani, although now I gotta say, I like Romney's guts.
Having said that, I'll go to your point that I'm "outright lying" about Mickelson somehow.
***WATCH THE VIDEO****AND YOU'LL HEAR MICKELSON TELL ROMNEY (WHEN HE GOES TO A COMMERCIAL) THAT HE IS NOW "OFF THE RECORD". If he did that to MCCain or to Hillary...dude, there would be hell to pay.
Have you any idea what "OFF THE RECORD" means, especially to a politician? Having secretly recorded this and then thrown IT OUT FOR THE PUBLIC makes it ON THE RECORD.
What's worse is, Mickelson doing videoing this secretly doesn't give the subject of the interview the benefit of knowing what he tells the interviewer will later BE PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.
Furthermore...Romney did a great job speaking to the issue of separation of church and state. Mickelson was evidently unprepared because Romney's been buffeted by MORMON questions by better interviewers than Mickelson and he evidently didn't know that its already been beaten to death.
Look, if your a friend of Mickelson or his wife or something...do yourself a favor and watch the video again. You'll see Mickelson pull the {{{{THIS IS OFF THE RECORD}}}} stunt and then tell me who's lying to whom.
And NO...I'm not a Mormon. |
|
Listening to that interviewer was like listening to fingernails down a chalkboard. God gave you ears in addition to a mouth - use them! He wouldn't let Mitt finish a sentence.
I am not a believer in LDS, nor Judaism, nor Catholic, just protestant. But to imply the Mormon church will dictate politics is ridiculous. Just look at the Senate majority leader who is LDS. Him and Romney are polar opposites on every issue. So if the LDS church wants to influence politics, they are doing a bad job. |
|
|
The reason Romney should not open a dialogue about being Mormon is confirmed in this video. This moron radio host thinks he knows so much about the LDS church so Romney has to take up the whole time explaining that he has misunderstood the doctine. All that time is wasted and the end result is the same. It is no problem (and encouraged)to ask him his views on moral issues but then to accuse him of not living his religion and inadvertantly mention that he should have been excommunicated is rediculous. And to add to the unprofessionalism he secretly video taped it all. |
|
|
|
|
Mitt does very well in this interview. He shows some spine and toughness. Jan Michelson has done some damage to his credibility by say "this is off the record" and goes ahead publishes this? What? Shouldn't he get fired for that? |
|
Has there ever been any informed doubt that Mitt personally opposed and opposes an individual having an abortion? Has anyone really believed that Mitt thought it was great and OK to have an abortion? A person called to be a Mormon Bishop or Stake President, both of which Mitt has served as, simply would not be in favor of abortion. I've never ever seen one that was.
But there is a difference between opposing a practice - not doing it yourself, encouraging others to not do it, and hoping that a majority of society will also agree – there is a difference between that and demanding, insisting or investing time to politically and legally make that moral and chosen path the law of the land.
To illustrate my point, I ask the Christians that are opposed to Mitt because he is (as they say) a flip-flopper on abortion: should we make it the law of the land, upon punishment of jail or fine, that all people must call upon Jesus and invite him into their hearts? Should that be the law? And if you say ‘yes’, then I ask: what good would that do? Would their legally mandated statements be accepted by Christ as a sincere request? Would they be born again? And if you say ‘no’ then I say (as you do to Mitt) you must be a flip flopper on Christ.
If you claim that that the US government and laws should be the sole and most meaningful repository of all morality and all goodness then what will you say to Hillary when she says that she agrees, and says that the government should care for all poor and uninsured and should immediately start to beat our military swords into plows? How will you answer her on those points?
Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” It is not a determinative sign of our devotion to Christ, his cause, or his teachings to attempt to meld his kingdom to the current political sphere ‘in the world.' Doing so doesn’t make us more holy, more pure, more righteous, or better than the Democrats. Mitt appears to understand that.
|
|
|
If he knew, would he get up mid-sentence and walk to the rear of the broadcasting booth, while continuing to speak? Would you? |
|
Lowandslow, you don't know what you are talking about. Mitt was exactly correct - exactly - regarding the LDS doctrine he referenced, and Christ's return.
Here are a couple of biblical references Mormons would point to that there are two seats of government after Christ's return:
Isa. 4: 3-4
3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:
Joel 3: 16-17
16 The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.
From Mormon Scripture:
#
D&C 133: 21, 24, 56
21 And he shall utter his voice out of Zion, and he shall speak from Jerusalem, and his voice shall be heard among all people;
• • •
24 And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.
• • •
56 And the graves of the saints shall be opened; and they shall come forth and stand on the right hand of the Lamb, when he shall stand upon Mount Zion, and upon the holy city, the New Jerusalem; and they shall sing the song of the Lamb, day and night forever and ever.
|
|
That's a great moniker. I bet it really describes you to a T.
When you are in a studio and cameras are all around and someone tells you "this is off the record" do you not believe them? I guess the answer is - not any more. I don't imagine there was anything to tell him it was filming. That would've defeated Jan's purpose.
Grow up - get your head out of the dark place. I don't know who I will support - but Mitt is a good man - and if he comes through I will be very happy. I can imagine a debate between hillary and Mitt - I'd pay bucks to see that in person. |
|
lowandslow: "Misdirection of what his Church doctrine really is takes guts? He got caught in a lie on This Week and now he has to go out of his way to explain what he really meant, poor Mitch. Then in this same interview he tries to blur his church's policies with church doctrine on the abortion issue."
His explanations of Mormon beliefs have been precisely correct. He knows what his church teaches.
Who are YOU? |
|
|
campaign sent this out to Dean so that he could "spin" it on behalf of Mitt. I feel a little sorry for the interviewer since he has been unfairly slimed in one respect on this board, but he sounds exactly like Hugh Hewitt interviewing people so my sympathy is somewhat reduced. |
|
heh...You got that right...
Especially if lowandslow videotapes you secretly..
I mean...'an interviewer'...heh.. |
|
FROM POLITICO-----UPDATE: I've gotten a little more information as to how this raw footage came to be public. A Romney campaign aide said they didn't know the session was being taped nor did they know it would be posted. Apparently when they found out, the campaign sought to keep the off-air discussion from being put on Mickelson's website. "They decided to post it anyway," said the aide.
SECONDLY...maybe you misread the first statement of politico regarding Dean Barnett and how he got this vid.
FROM POLITICO: "PERHAPS" knowing that the video was bound to get out, Romney's campaign sought to frame the story by posting it on its YouTube site and sending it to a friendly blogger, Dean Barnett of TownHall.
The word "PERHAPS" means...maybe. Maybe the Romney campaign sent it out....SPECULATION BY POLITICO.
And if they did send it out....they should have. Because sure enough, the other candidates will blog about how Romney was caught on "hidden camera" and said this, (pant, pant!) and said that...
So it behooves the Romney campaign to put their spin on it of course...just political reality. |
|
lowandslow, please don't presume to lecture Mormons on what we believe.
Speaking personally, I'm the foremost expert on the planet regarding what I believe, and you're not likely to convince me that I don't believe it, nor to persuade me that I believe things that I don't.
Mitt Romney is right about the Church's teachings, and you're wrong. Period. That's all there is to say about the matter. Give it a rest. |
|
I have been reading all 300 posts on the RealClearPolitics "RomneyUnhinged" lead that goes to a Politico article and there take on the video. The Politico article is a typical drive by response but the reader comments are going very heavily pro Romney.
There are a few anti Mormons but many Fred, and Rudy supporters, Indies and Dems liked how Romney handled this. This looks like a big positive for Romney. |
|
It is almost impossible to take a very complex set of extensive doctrines like the ones on the second coming and reduce them down to a 30 sound bite answer that can effectively address questions like the ones that Stephanopoulos asked.
It is not feasible to address those type of questions on TV without a 30 minute expose. Even then, after 30 minutes, most people will have more questions and misconceptions than when you started. That is one reason why Romney is wise to stay away from trying to explain every nuance of possible doctrine.
Stephanopoulos knows that and that is why he asked that type of question. It was an ambush. Just what you would expect from ABC.
No matter how you answer it something bad happens with key blocks of voters. You upset secular voters by talking religion. Among various types of Christians there are great differences of opinion on many aspects of the second coming and you upset many of them.
|
|
Please tell us what Romney was supposed to say when talking to Stephanopoulos. Here are the facts with which you must work:
1. Stephanopoulos was 1/2 correct in his stated premise (that Christ would come to MO.) and totally incorrect in his implication (that Christ was going to come to MO rather than and exclusive of Jerusalem.) Therefore, as a whole George was incorrect.
2. To my knowledge, Christians don’t have any notion that Christ will make multiple appearances as part of the second coming. I'm guessing that it is a uniquely LDS theology that the second coming is really a series of events rather than one single event.
3. Therefore, when you say second coming in front of Christians and Mormons, the word means two different things. They don’t use the same vocabulary. Christians think of one single event, and it is the big event.
4. Stephanopoulos was using the Christian meaning, not the Mormon meaning, when he asked the question.
Therefore, in order for Mitt to answer the question to your standard and satisfaction he would have to explain the differences in theology and in vocabulary, then correct Stephanopoulos in his misstated implication, then perhaps reframe a correct question, then answer it.
Was he really supposed to do all that in a Sunday morning interview? Is that what you require to meet your super-high and ridiculous standard for exactness? How was Mitt supposed to accomplish that and still keep the flow of the interview going, and stay away from becoming the spokesman for Mormonism?
What Mitt did with Stephanopoulos was answer the question using the Christian’s vocabulary and meaning, and said Mormons believe that the second coming is to Jerusalem. And using the Christian’s meaning, that is exactly what Mormons believe – the big one is at Jerusalem. Then in this latest interview (off record) he explained using the Mormon vocabulary – yes he will also come to MO and it is a series of events. Mitt has been consistent.
|
|
Mr. Clark -- I think you need to reread the Politico statement. The word "perhaps" refers to the fact that this might get out, not whether the Romney campaign released it. They did. In fact, Andrew Sullivan's guest blogger Eric Kleefield (www.andrewsullivan.com) contacted Romney's folks and asked why ROMNEY put this out:
"I just e-mailed Romney's press secretary Kevin Madden, asking why the campaign decided to put this particular exchange up on YouTube. His reply:
Because it shows Governor Romney standing his ground and making his case to an interviewer that took him head-on over the issues. He is confident and engaging during a tough inquiry. Folks who have seen the video says it is Governor Romney at his best, so we felt others should have the chance to see it." |
|
...were being interviewed on the radio, would anyone give a rat's hind end where he thought the Second Coming would take place? As it has not taken place for more than 2,000 years, perhaps a few more relevant questions are in order.
Let's face it, Mitt Romney's religion has some rather idiosyncratic beliefs from the perspective of an outsider. So does my religion (Catholic). Whatever you are, if you have a religion, rest assured that those outside it will raise their eyebrows at some (and maybe most) of the theology. And for those of us who collectively claim any belief in the Almighty, rest assured, too, that the non-believers think we are all slightly nuts, so another good reason the Constitution forbids a religious test for public office.
As for the above segment, Romney acquitted himself well as a debater, but good grief, I cannot imagine a sillier, less probative way to spend 20 minutes with a major presidential candidate. |
|
|
...end up opening up opportunities you can't duplicate. I think that is what we have here with Romney. He could not have staged this, but now that it happened, it sure looks to be a benefit. This episode may very well resolve concerns that would otherwise be difficult using just speech, debate, and interview. Romney has the goods. |
|
Next to Mickelson he comes across as sane, thoughtful and realistic. What´s this guy´s problem?
Sometimes I don´t understand certain conservatives - we have fantastic candidates with the most impressive cv´s such as Giuliani and Romney, and all they can do is look for the hair in the soup. I´m more scared of this bunch of crybabies waiting for their pure white knight to come and sweep them off their feet than I am of the pathetic candidates the Democrats have (Motto: if you can say "change" and "hope" 254 times a day you, too, can become President)
|
|
Given the kooky and cultic doctrines of Mormonism, most religious conservatives feel uncomfortable with Mitt Romney’s ability to rationalize, to straddle fences, all the while being touted as “a good Mormon.” But, what does being a good Mormon really mean in the context of being President? Is someone gullible enough to embrace Mormonism really fit to hold the highest office of the land?
In the video, Romney states, more-or-less, that Mormons in public office are "free" to make decisions which are not in line with their religion. He even emotionally claims that Mormon leaders are pro-choice. Ok, so what is the driving philosophic basis for a Mormon's social and political decisions? The burden is upon Mr. Romney to explain to this to the public. And the given the kooky and cultic doctrines of Mormonism, most religious conservatives feel uncomfortable with Mitt Romney’s ability to rationalize, to straddle fences, all the while being touted as “a good Mormon.” But, what does being a good Mormon really mean in the context of being President? Is someone gullible enough to embrace Mormonism really fit to hold the highest office of the land?
See this "Mitt Unpluged" video. In the video, Romney states, more-or-less, that Mormons in public office are "free" to make decisions which are not in line with their religion. He even emotionally claims that Mormon leaders are pro-choice. Ok, so what is the driving philosophic basis for a Mormon's social and political decisions? The burden is upon Mr. Romney to explain to this to the public. And the public has a right to know...contrary to the claims of his defenders. |
|
DanS writes: "See this "Mitt Unpluged" video. In the video, Romney states, more-or-less, that Mormons in public office are "free" to make decisions which are not in line with their religion. "
You did not listen very carefully or did not listen to the last few minutes. Romney said he and other good Mormons live their religion including prohibition on pre-marital sex, adultery, alcohol consumption and abortion, but some do not feel they need to use the power of the Federal government to make others live according to Mormon religious tenets. many good Mormons like Romney feel that laws allowing or disallowing abortions should be matters for the states to decide while other good Mormons think it is okay for the Federal government to pass such laws. Most Mormons do not the government to prohibit drinking or premarital sex or adultery even though these things are anathema to the Mormon religion.
An other issue Romney had with the commentator is the commentators penchant for telling Mormons what they believe.
|
|
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Jan-Mickelson
Governor Mitt Romney: HERE is your opportunity to have that settled in your mind. I was governor four years. This is not just what I’m talking about. I was governor for four years. I had a number of pieces of legislation that came to my desk that dealt with abortion, abstinence education, RU-486, and so forth. I vetoed any bill that was in favor of choice. I was entirely consistent in favor of life. And so it’s not just my word that you have to take. Look at my record. |
|
It seems 99% of the confusion over the pro-life/pro-choice flap is due to a massive misunderstanding of what it means to be Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. In Mitt's definition, and I think it's about as accurate as any I've heard is this:
Pro-Choice - You allow others to exercise their right to have an abortion. It doesn't mean you encourage it. It doesn't mean you will get an abortion yourself. It doesn't even mean that you think abortion is morally OK. You may even find it repugnant and morally wrong (like Harry Reid does, but is pro-choice). It only means you allow others to exercise their right to get one.
Pro-Life - You don't want to allow others to exercise their right to have an abortion. This stance may or may not have to do with a moral or religious persuasion.
Like I said 99% of the arguments against Mitt about him flipping on this issue assume a wrong definition for both of these terms. |
|
You talk about LDS people like they got stamped out of a cookie cutter. I know a ton of LDS people, being one of them, and of those that are active in the faith they comprise an extremely diverse group of backgrounds and opinions and devotions. I know that may be true of most protestants, but with one key difference. Protestants who are as actively involved in their church as active LDS are in theirs (I'm talking about those who go to church multiple times throughout the week) do seem much more homogeneous than LDS people are.
LDS people are extremely independent in many ways and as BG referenced above (see his link - I won't post it because it makes a mess of the reply) the church authorities are cool with that. One of the most prominent tenets of the church is this concept of "moral agency" and "free agency", that is weaved all throughout LDS doctrine in a very intrinsic intimate way.
You want to know about Mitt - get to know Mitt. You want to learn about the LDS church, get to know the LDS church. THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME, HE IS NOT RUNNING FOR MINISTER-IN-CHIEF, and if you didn't get that the re-watch the video. |
|
I read the above comments by "Liberty"
Liberty writes: Saturday, August, 04, 2007 10:45 Liberty writes: Saturday, August, 04, 2007 10:47
He references a book by Cleon Skousen... So I go and look it up by the supplied link. And what do I find? A review in July of 200 by Jan Mickelson, from Des Moines...
26 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
The Making of America, July 25, 2000
By Jan Mickelson (Des Moines, IA USA) - See all my reviews
Indispensable ammunition for those of us seeking to establish "original intent". Skousen's book matches provisions of the Constitution with Madison's Notes on the Convention. Very readable. Liberals hate it...that's good enough for me.
Is Jan Mickelson the book reviewer on amazon our radio host of interest today?
|
|
|
Mitt showed true character and skill as a politician. He definitely believes in what he stands for and stands for what he believes. I was truly impressed with his composure. He has risen in the Republican polls in my mind today. I think Rudy would make a good vice-president, however. |
|
Anyone "gullible enough" to swallow "the kooky and cultic doctrines" of Mormonism should be relegated to second-class citizenship, at best.
It has been an enormous mistake to permit Mormons to serve as senators, governors, generals, CEOs, quarterbacks, American Medical Association presidents, federal judges, NASA directors, NFL coaches, American Chemical Society presidents, ambassadors, cabinet secretaries, astronauts, university presidents, and admirals. Furthermore, they should win no more Pulitzer Prizes, Academy Awards, or Miss America crowns, and should never again be elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
They are plainly unfit for such honors, and, ideally, should be restricted to certain neighborhoods. Maybe they should be required to wear yellow stars. |
|
I don't know what that exchange says about Romney, but as far as Jan Mickelson... wow, what a JERK!
I'd like to take that guy outside and settle our difference like men. There wouldn't be much left of him. People like him are an embarrassment to the conservative name. I don't think much of the people who'd listen to that guy, for that matter.
Stupid. Rude. Wrong. And a jerk to boot. If that's what Iowa's about, to hell with that state. |
|
you wrote..
It seems 99% of the confusion over the pro-life/pro-choice flap is due to a massive misunderstanding of what it means to be Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. In Mitt's definition, and I think it's about as accurate as any I've heard is this:
Pro-Choice - You allow others to exercise their right to have an abortion. It doesn't mean you encourage it. It doesn't mean you will get an abortion yourself. It doesn't even mean that you think abortion is morally OK. You may even find it repugnant and morally wrong (like Harry Reid does, but is pro-choice). It only means you allow others to exercise their right to get one.
-----------------------------------
What you do not write is how on earth anyone could think abortion is morally wrong (repugnant) if it is not the taking of human life.
If the fetus has no life (and hence no value) and is akin to a clump of cells or some sort of growth to be removed for convenience sake..then how can ANYONE..ANYONE find abortion morally wrong?
But if you do ascribe life to the fetus (or even at most are wanting to err on the side of caution) - then how could you sit back while abortion remains legal?
How can you speak of a "right" to end human life?
Harry Reid (and many Catholic Dems) and their kind are gross hypocrites who hope people like you David will go along with their "personally opposed but willing to let others take life..and will fight to the end to keep judges off the court that might save life."
Because they know they must support abortion to remain active players in the Democrat party. The ONE issue which it demands total allegiance to of its Senators and Presidents. |
|
Romney: We are the largest economy in the world. We’ve added – during the time Europe added 3 million jobs, we’ve added about 50 million jobs in this country.
http://www.factcheck.org/sunday_morning_missteps.html
it took the United States 30 years to grow 50 million jobs. And in the time it took Europe to add 3 million jobs, the US only added 2.3.
Ouch. And to think this was his "best" performance of the 4 debates so far. Double ouch. |
|
... and I believe this video shows a small glimpse of what we would get with a Mitt Romney White House. He is fake, and panders to whatever crowd he is trying to win the votes from. While running for govener he needed to be "moderate," and now running for president he needs to be "conservative," hence the change in stance.
For those looking for the other side of the table, please read Jan Mickelson's response to the video: http://cache.libsyn.com/mickelson/Mickelson_Response.htm
|
|
|
|