Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, October 02, 2006
Doug Wilson :: Townhall.com Columnist
Romney for President?
by Doug Wilson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


“Mitt who?” my friend asked. I said, “Come on, you know Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts – the guy who passed an innovative health care bill that requires every person in his state to purchase a health insurance policy; the guy who lowered taxes in a Democratic stronghold and managed to balance the state’s budget by reorganizing its workforce and cutting costs; the guy who nearly single-handedly saved the Salt Lake City Olympics!

Yes, I said, that’s Mitt Romney. Later on it struck me that there might be a lot of other folks who, like my friend, don’t know who Mitt Romney is. That should change. And after attending a small, private dinner reception for Romney in California recently, I think I can help make that happen.

The reception marked the fourth time I’ve met Romney; each time I’ve noticed something special about him. First, he’s a family man. Romney almost always travels with his wife, Ann, who is an attractive woman and the mother of five boys, all of whom are now grown and productive adults. In my opinion, a couple who can raise a family, stay in love, and still be wildly successful must posses great wisdom and personal character. Let’s say it’s a good start for a man who wants to hold the most powerful leadership role in the world.

Second, Romney is a self-made businessman. He didn’t have a father who paved the way with gold. He wasn’t set up in a business so he could then run for president. No, Romney first worked at Bain consulting and then started Bain Capital, which made millions of dollars investing in growing companies. Bain made it big and Romney was the undisputed leader. I have spoken with several of the people that Romney personally financed, and every person says he was brilliant, easy to work with, and a great strategic player. For further evidence of Romney’s leadership capabilities, consider that Bain Capital continues to thrive without Romney because the governor developed a first-rate leadership team to build upon the culture of success that he started.

Third, Romney has the proven ability to govern across America’s increasingly vast political divide. In a state where Republicans are only slightly more common than dinosaurs, Romney passed a health care bill with the support of a Democratic legislature—not to mention Teddy Kennedy—that serves as a model for other states and the federal government. Indeed, The Heritage Foundation, the most respected conservative think tank in Washington, wholeheartedly endorsed—and worked behind the scenes to help create—Romney’s plan. Why does Heritage like it? Because it does not provide universal health care financed by the government; rather, it keeps private insurance in the loop and only subsidizes people who are too poor to pay all of their insurance premiums—but even then, everyone must pay something. Far from a government hand-out, this plan embodies the innovative, forward thinking that America so desperately needs to respond to an escalating health care crisis.

Fourth, Romney is highly analytical and collaborative. He likes to look at a problem from a lot of different angles and then he asks the all-important question, “How do I build coalitions to get a viable solution passed through a legislature?” By 2008, the American people will demand a president who can think broadly about an issue based on principle, AND who can also build bridges to get things done. I think Romney can do both.

Now let’s turn to the problems surrounding a potential Romney candidacy.

Leadership Experience That Stops at the Water’s Edge

Romney lacks foreign policy experience, something I think will be a key factor in winning the nomination of either party in 2008. As Islamic radicalism continues to fester and China continues its rapid economic ascent, America will need a leader well-versed in the intricacies of global politics to shepherd her through many difficult challenges. One of Romney’s first priorities should be proving to the American people that he is a competent foreign policy thinker.

He’s From Massachusetts…

As the folks in Texas, Florida, Virginia and elsewhere might remember, Massachusetts is that little state tucked up there by New York—not exactly a breeding ground for conservatives. Romney will need to move to diffuse any rumors of Northeastern elitism and peg himself as an insurgent fighting against the liberal status quo in New England.

...And He’s a Mormom

If you’re like me, this doesn’t matter much. In fact, I think it’s actually a plus because it assures me that Romney shares my personal values. But Romney’s religion poses legitimate questions for many Americans, and he will most likely be forced to address the issue throughout his campaign. I asked Romney about the issue and here’s what he said: “Well, if my religious affiliation is the worst thing people can dig up on me, then I’m in pretty good shape.” Continuing, Romney said, “some people in Massachusetts were concerned about this as well, but once people got to know me, they saw I had solid ideas.”

I think the American people will have a similar reaction…once they get to know him.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Doug Wilson is the the co-author, with Edwin Feulner, of Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today.

Be the first to read Doug Wilson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Romney
Sounds good to me.

Better than Giuliani and McCain wrapped together and squared.

Same old,
Gee, more pro Romney propaganda courtesy of Townhall. What a shock.

What's his position on gun control?
After New York (City), Mass. has one of the most prohibitive set of gun laws in the country. You can't get a permit to carry unless you know someone. And try to even own a gun in Mass., it's almost as difficult as trying to get a permit to carry!


loflyer
Dont know what your problem is. But lets go back to basics.

Romney a Conservative.
Townhall a Conservative website.
Townhall publishes favorable comment on Romney.

Er.. Duh!

No way
As a conservative and a Republican residing in Massachusetts, I have to shake my head at all of the great press Romney has been receiving in- some- of the conservative media. Folks- this guy has NOT accomplished a lot! Has he floated countless ideas, some great, some good, some lame? Yes. Has he been able to implemement most of these? Nope.

MA VOTERS approved an initiative to roll the income tax back to it's traditonal 5%. The elgislature refused to enact this rollback (leaving the rate @ 5.3%.) Romney as Chief Executive has been ineffective in enforceing the will of the voters to get this rolled back. The best Mitt has done is keep taxes from going up. As for balancing the budget, yes, it did balance on his watch, and he does deserve some credit. However, the reason the budget became out of balance in significant part was due to a temporary decline in state revenues as a result of the 00-02 economic slowdown (which was felt especially hard in MA.) Few to none of the "efficiency" measures mentioned above were actually enacted, certainly not in the legislative branch.

Mitt in '02 campainged as the "jobs" Governor- given his (considerable) success in the private sector, he was going to lure countless jobs, employers, busniesses, etc... to Massachusetts. Instead, this state has bled jobs on his watch (owing to his impotence as Governor AND the tax-and-spend/anti-business mentality of much of the state's Democratic establishment) only now recovering what was lost. In addition, poeple are fleeing the state in droves (MA one of the few states to LOSE population.) Mitt campainged in '02 as a centrist, fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republican, the sort electable in most of the Northeast. Once he got Potomac Fever, he- cravenly- tacked hard right on myriad social issues, pandering to elements of the Republican electorate nationally while forsaking the views of many who put him in office in the first place (Conservative Big Government, micro-managing people's lives, is no more palatable than Liberal Big Government; we don't need Mitt Romney telling adults what and what not they may do in their private lives and more than we need Ted Kennedy doing so.)

While Mitt certainly looks the part, please folks- don't buy the hype. In terms of governance, this guy is vastly over-rated. MA has had some effective Republican Governors in recent yearts (Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci)- Mitt Romeny is NOT one of them. You want an effective Republican Chief Executive from the Northeast who IS Presidential material? Rudy Giuliani is your man.

Look at his record
I have to agree with Howee. Romney has moved right with his Presidential aspirations in order to appeal to the conservative wing of the Republican Party. In Massachusetts not only did he run as a moderate on social issues, he directed the City Clerks to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples following the decision reached by the Mass Supreme Court. No law for same sex marriage had been passed and Romney did not have to issue this directive. Instead he should have directed the issue to the legislature. He has not helped to build the local Republican Party and has not delivered on the economic issues. While he has not raised taxes, he has raised fees to the tune of 750 million dollars. He looks good but once you scratch the surface you will be disappointed.

Disagree on "stops at waters edge"
His refusal to provide Khatami a security escort proves that he is no dummy on foreign policy.

Big Bussiness, Not God's Bussiness
I have many doubts about Gov. Mitt Romney's Devotion to God. If a man can inpose a deviant life sytle onto the State of Massachusetts and side with the courts, he has not represented the people of Massachusetts, and Certainly not God's, design of mankind. The natural human family, the blueprint of the Creator all of humanity of the family of man. God granted, made man in his image, to be able to be fruitful and mulitply. This law of God's Creation has somehow escaped Mitt Romney's Religious Beliefs. I pray for him and for our State and our country. Mitt Romney the Father of gay marriage. What a terrible fate for the family of God.

'08 should be interesting
I can't decide yet who my candidate to back for '08 would be, but Romney has a chance in my eyes. Rudy Guliani is too soft in his stance on illegal immigration. George Allen was my very early choice, but seeing his WIMPY defense of some pretty lame charges -- (what does macaca mean anyway)(and WHO CARES about him POSSIBLY saying the n-word 30 years ago)from the left, I'm in a quandry --
But, look -- it's still 2 years away!!
My jury is still out on Romney -- he's a possiblity in my eyes -- his health care plan takes that issue AWAY from the Democrats, and that's a plus for me.

Big gay al: I'm glad you asked...
... about the gun control issue.

Romney's pro-gun control. I looked it up on the web.

I also have now changed my mind about my support for him. He's just another McCain or Giuliani.

Well, it's still a long ways out (2 years). I guess we'll just have to see who else pops up on the radar.

Kathy
Kathy,
Mitt is not the Father of Gay Marriage, as he opposes it just as much as you. I think you need to read the LDS church's "The Family: A Proclomation to the World".

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.


RE: Big Gay Al
Once upon a time, you were right -- you couldn't get an LTC unless you knew someone. A few years ago, though, the head of the Massachusetts State police, though, told the licensing officers to discontinue the practice of issuing restricted licenses. I don't know whether Romney was responsible for this or not, but what I can say is that he has made no attempt to reverse that decision. Yeah, it's still a bit of a pain, and most gun manufacturers can't sell in Massachusetts (which is the fault of Attorney General Tom Reilly, not Romney), but Romney hasn't made it any worse.

Romney did what he could with.....
....a hard left state congress. No way he could get the tax rate lowered to 5% despite the vote. Keeping taxes from going up in Massachusetts is a miracle.

Watch what happens when Duval Patrick takes control of the state after the next election. You won't be complaining about Mitt "only" keeping taxes from getting raised once Duval is done with your wallet.

They don't call it Taxachusetts for nothing.

There are 100 of thousands
There are 100's of thousands who are going to remeber Mitt Romney in a very, very negative light. Also a very disturbing and destructive light. And many more whom are going to pray, for the salvation of the country.

Don't Feed me That Dribble
Scon,

God knows exactly what Mitt Romney did and why. So don't feed us that dribble!!!!!

Three things:
First, the rest of us don't really want someone from the Northeast as President.

Second, I'd vote for a born-again evangelical if he could stop being bigoted against other religions for a moment while he ran for office. "I'm the only true Christian!" seems to be the battle cry. "Everyone else is going to Hades, and ESPECIALLY the Mormons!"

Three: is there anyone out there who is just honest, hard working, and capable? Once they get a little power, they seem to go off the deep end. Remember a guy named Foley who fought for tougher laws against pedophiles and wagged his finger at the nation, and now should go to prison and get his own wig?

Romney - A Definite Maybe
I'll consider Romney, but I've got to know a lot more. No one else in the Republican field at this point excites me at all. I thought that maybe George Allen could be the one, but it appears that he might already be damaged goods. It is probably unrealistic at this point to expect some white night to ride in out of the blue with all the right credentials, the right look, the right demeanor, etc. to capture the hearts and minds of conservative Republicans. So with this in mind it leaves me at least open to consider a guy like Romney.

I hope that the guy who succeeds Romney as governor of Mass. is a whacked out lefty in the mold of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I'm tired of these liberal northeastern states electing leftist legislators to foist upon the rest of the country and then electing Republican governors with at least a few moderate to conservative views to attend to the affairs of their state. I want these liberal northeastern states to have to wallow in their own pathetic bankrupt leftist delusion to showcase to the rest of the country the failures of their philosophy. Let Massachussets be the shining example of Leftist incompetence! The closest we have come to this model was California under Grey Davis, and then much to my disgust they brought in a "conservative" (only compared to Davis) RINO to muddy up the model and provide a "conservative" target to take the blame for the states philosophical and economic failings.

Bob, Howee & Kathy
I’m going to disagree a little here. Can you name me one politician on either side who hasn’t moved to his or her base before the primaries? They all do it, once it’s time for the general election they will move “back” to the center. Also, when you have a legislature that is over 90% Dem and against everything you say, how could he pass anything though on his own? Our system of government doesn’t work that way.
The gay marriage thing was pure politics, if you are running for president, you can’t come out and tell the SJC to stuff it ( as I thought he should have done, but I don’t want to president), you’ll alienate the people in the middle and you lose the white house (to Hilary… Shiver…).
The jobs thing again goes to the legislature, taxes in your state are to high (the 5.3% thing is all the legislature and you should vote them out) and no new business will come in and as a stated by Howee people are moving to my state (NH) in droves. Please keep the all the liberals there, I don’t want them in my state…
Blaming everything on the executive branch is easy but most of our problems in both Sates and General governments are born from the legislatures. My motto this year… Don’t re-elect anyone! In Mass. that would be a big step in the right direction.

Kathy
Please get off your "Holier than thou" high horse.

EVERYONE knows - except you apparently - that Mitt Romney was completely against what the whack job supreme court from his state foisted upon this country. Because their state constitution couldn't be changed for a long time (8 years?), he at least kept the insanity within his own state by denying gay marriage licenses to any out of staters.

His "religion" is very much against gay marriage. Please make an attempt to become a little more informed before you spout your mouth off about that which you obviously know nothing about.

Mitt Romney
You mean he doesn't fool around with the Novinskys of the world? You mean he also doesn't have a boy friend in tow? Gee, what kind of an old fashioned dinosaur is he?

Sounds good
I'm going to look more into Romney. Right now, I am concerned about McCain. I don't think he's right for the job of president. Neither is the former mayor of New York City. Romney's lack of foreign policy experience is a concern. Look at George Bush!! It really shows that he had none and still is stumbling after 6 years. We can't afford that again. The USA needs a president who will secure and protect our borders; locate and deal with illegals already here; understand that outrageous spending while cutting the tax base will only put us more and more in the hands of foreign investors; will listen to the experts in the Pentagon when it comes to war --- not some vain defense secretary; be inclusive and not divisive such as Bush has proven to be; and most of all be competent and flexible to changes.

Mitt doesn't happen
Pogue_Mahone writes: Monday, October, 02, 2006 11:43 AM
Romney did what he could with.....
Pogue- his immediate Republican predecessors did the exact same thing. The differences being that:
1- they did not also have a VOTER APPROVED initiaitve to rollback the income tax passed by a significant majority; Romney did (he has been ineffective in expedning the effort to rally that support to force action by the Legislature)
2- they did not attempt to ride an average record of Gubernatorial achievement to the White House.
(And if Romney had spent as much effort at building a viable Mass. GOP base as he has enhancing his own image, perhaps we here in MA wouldn't be facing the specter of a Gov. Duval Patrick, and his stature as a PARTY leader might be enhanced.)

Freedomlost- in my post above, I take the Dem legislature to task as well. And your state is doing a great job in wooing many of our more productive residents! But the subject of this is Romney, and his Presidential ambitions, not those of the MA legislature. People around the country need to know that, while he may well look the part, his record of achievement as Governor is thin. A lot of rhetoric, little in terms of results.

RE: Howee
Personally, I think 4 years of Duval Patrick would be good for the kooks in Massachusetts. A legistlature 80% left wing Democrat and a governor who looks to his right and sees Hugo Chavez, but only through a telescope, will really put things in perspective. Maybe, just maybe, after that, we could finally get the "OMG!!! ANOTHER KENNEDY IS ON THE BALLOT!!!" morons to actually think about one's position on the issues rather than their last name.

Of course we must always remember that Patrick is pretty likely to pull a Shannon O'Brien anyhow. What most seem to ignore is that on a few select issues, us here in Massachusetts are more conservative than we're given credit for. The only reason Romney got elected is because O'Brien failed to realize that the Massachusetts voters are more conservative on the abortion issues than the percentage of Democrats in our congress would otherwise indicate. The weekend prior to the 2002 election, O'Brien was leading by like 5 points in every poll, then she flapped her jaw on television about how she thought it was ok for a 13-year-old to get an abortion without her parents ever knowing. A few short days later, the Irish Catholics swarmed to the polls, and gave Romney a ~7 point victory.

If Duval plans on telling voters how he REALLY feels on issues like abortion or gay marriage, then he might as well start writing his concession speech right now. At least THAT is one thing that give Massachusetts one up on California.

On second thought, we DID still vote for McGovern.

Howee II
I understand where your coming from but what could Mitt have done to make the legislature doing anything? Go to the media? The Globe and most of the Boston TV stations aren’t exactly in his back pocket. The way I see it you have a Rep. Governor and the most liberal legislature in the union, ok may # 2… He can only do so much… If you have something he could have done I’m all ears. I’m not saying he’s the man for me but I’ll at least check him out, since the next Thomas Jefferson isn’t any where to be seen.

As for the Republican Party in your state, I helped out in a campaign down there (the same year he was elected) and it not that you aren’t organized (it's as bad/good as any other party I’ve seen) it just there are no Republican in your state. I’ll tell you the same thing I told the guy I tried to help get elected, move north, man! New Hampshire “Live free or die!”

Let me get this straight
Romney's qualifications are:

1) Blue state liberals love him

2) He spawned offspring

3) He hasn't divorced

4) He can run a sports event

5) He created universal healthcare

6) Ted Kennedy supported him

Remember, the above were said to be his assests.

As far as I'm concerned
Mitt Romney is a pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-universal healthcare RINO.

Leaning toward Romney
In light of the other candidates available to conservatives I'm leaning toward Mitt but I'm concerned about the gun control issue. Not too concerned about the Morman thing although I don't agree with their extra prophets they are christians. Mitt Romney is a transplant in Massholechucetts. I like how he denouced the Islamofacist speakers that were invited to Harvard. Still not confirmed though.

Howee: Guiliani is out he's too liberal, socialist for me. Can't trust him.

Who cares if the liberals don't like him they won't vote for conservatives anyway.

BrianR
I disagree. I think that Romney would prove to be just as inept in dealing with social issues and selecting judges as Giulianni and McCain. Between the three, if I absolutely had to pick, I would go with McCain.

Why
I think that, when it comes time to stand up for conservative values, none of the three (McCain, Romney, Giulianni) will do so. But McCain at least has military experience. All three, however, are slightly crazy.

Another thing
Two of the three: McCain and Romney, can be easily manipulated. Giulianni doesn't evince the same tendency, but, unfortunately, he's a liberal just like the other two.

Finally, and I'll shut up.
Don't take this the wrong way, but with the way Romney maneuvers and splits the middle in political controversies, he reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton.

Romney not even close to Clinton
Clinton is a Socialist loser. You have to remember Romney ran for Governor in the most liberal state in the country. I trust him more that BCRA McCain and Guliani. I wish I knew more about his record. One thing is clear, there is no clearcut choice for conservative candidate.

Why is being Mormon an issue?
I am LDS and anytime somebody brings up mormons its an issue? Why? We are Christians and share the same moral values so why would being Mormon be an election issue while being Lutherian or Catholic or Protestant be any different?

Mitt Romney To Let Out of Staters Marry
Kitty girl-

Mitt Romney is permitting gay's to get married in Mass, Even Out Of Staters. He said he will honor the courts and judges ruling. Also if you have or know anyone who would like to join the ministry there's a really wonderful one called Stephen Bennet ministries, straight talk, although there are many others.


God Bless!!!

Kathy

jcdean1978
It's a big issue because of the extra book of Morman and the extra prophet, I forget his name. Did you miss the column by Prof. Mike? Aside from that it's not a big issue as far as being christians.

Madonna and Mitt
Like a Virgin??????????????????????????????????????

Rudy vs. Romney
I'm not sure how Giuliani comes off as a "liberal." While Mayor of NYC (comparable to the Governorship of many states) he:
- lowered taxes
- reduced city government
- streamlined and privatized delivery of many city services
- created a climate in which private-sector businesses could prosper and grow, resulting in a net gain of jobs
- reduced crime
- managed a major catastrophe (9/11) with real leadersip and ability.
Giuliani achieved these while dealing with an overwhelmingly liberal Democratic NYC political establishment; his is a record of results, not mere rhetoric.

"Liberal?" On gun control, Giuliani was hamstrung by onerous, long-standing city and state statutes restricting gun ownership. On gays... I've never understood the obsession some w/in the conservative camp have over how less than 5% of the population lives their lives. So long as they are not breaking the law (see: Foley, Mark) it is not my business- nor is it anyone else's- how they choose to live and conduct themselves sexually. As to abortion, this is one issue where I disagree w/ Rudy, but then W. hasn't banned elective abortions in the the US, nor has Mitt banned them in MA, either.

Brian R
Sure Romney is for gun control.

He is from Mass., that little yankee state that gave the USA Hanoi John Kerry and Chappaquiddic Teddy Kennedy.

I don't think we need any more politicians from the Commonwealth of Mass.

Howee
"I've never understood"

We know.

jcdean
It can be an issue, just like being a Christian can be an issue or a one-legged midget can be an issue. It just depends on the situation.

In this case, the fact that Romney is a mormon need not be reached, because he's also a RINO.

NEConservative
Even Clinton reformed welfare.

jerubaal
jerubaal writes: Monday, October, 02, 2006 5:08 PM
Howee
"I've never understood"

We know

???
Care to amplify?

bah Romney
Nothing good has come out of Massachusetts since John Quincy Adams. Forget Mitt.

Clinton reformed welfare
Clinton reformed welfare...what planet our you from. The only reason he signed the bill for welfare reform is the fact that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. He was absolutely opposed to welfare reform, he was forced into it.

Howee: re Giuliani
This is some stuff from my essay on Giuliani on my blog:

“Mayor Giuliani, when he was mayor of New York, basically said I'm not a Reagan Republican anymore, I'm a moderate Republican; I'm pro-choice, I'm for the Brady Bill, I'm for the assault weapons ban"
CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/06/national/main181115.shtml)


"But the contrast is not as sharp in Mrs. Clinton's expected contest with Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. The mayor and the first lady hold almost identical views on gun control, which could complicate any effort by Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast. Mr. Giuliani's campaign manager, Bruce J. Teitelbaum, said, "As a senator, New Yorkers will know exactly what Mayor Giuliani will do because he doesn't just talk about gun control, he actually has a record of taking an historic number of guns off the streets."
NY Times on the Web, 10 May 2000


“Abortion Fits GOP Philosophy, Says Giuliani
By Jeff McKay
CNS Correspondent
April 09, 2001”

“Giuliani Touts Senate's 'Comprehensive' Approach to Immigration Policy

By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 27, 2006

Mayor Giuliani is wading into the debate over America's immigration policy with the argument that the comprehensive approach being pursued by the Senate is better for American security than what he called the "punitive" approach being pressed by the House of Representatives.”



As you can see, he's a flaming liberal, who even compares himself favorably to Hildebeest.

No way do I EVER vote for this jackass.


Buck: You're right
Any way we can encourage Taxachussetts and all its sorry politicos to secede from the Union?

The more I see of Romney...
The more I likes what I see. Like the beer commercial says - Brilliant!

Finally we have a real conservative that we can all get behind. He may have a squeeky clean background as well. The others have either too much baggage (Allen unfortunately) or are a bunch of RINOS (McCain, Guliani, etc..)

I don't vote for the state he's/she's from - I vote for the man/women and what they stand for. Unless it's Billory, she had to hijack a state to win an election - couldn't win in Arkansas - and she knew it. Pathetic.

lakestate:
Romney supports gun control.

Dems are working hard...
The Dems are working hard to keep all pro-Romney blogs full of propaganda. This I have been told by someone very close to the source. There must be an awfully good reason why they fear this man over any other Republican forerunner. I think he's going to be nominated and possibly elected so sit tight and watch the show.

Brian R.
Since you brought up immigration reform- is President Bush also a "flaming liberal" to you?

And while you may disagree w/ Giuliani (I disagree w/ him on abortion, but I'm also not a one-issue voter) on several issues, you show your ignorance by calling one of our nation's great contemporary leaders, one who has been lauded by countless conservatives, as a "jackass." What have YOU done?

Typical Sex Appeal Nonsense
The chap from Mass. has the mid-year sex appeal that is so attractive to bored or furstrated Republicans. The same giddyness was seen for Colin Powell, John Anderson, and Pete DuPont in the past. Everyone is entitled to their fantasies. As for Gov Romney, definitely a morally and ethically most upright gentleman..more than can be said for ethically challenged folks like McCain or Rudy. But c'mon..the guy is okay with killing innocent kids (unless he changed again on that), wants to limit Second Amendment rights, is generally clueless about diplomacy, and bring no lock on a big home state electoral vote. But I tell you what, he'll be an excellent Secretary of Health and Human Services for President Sam Brownback. In fact, I'll personally tell Sam about him:)

Well, Howee, your questions
Yes, actually, on illegal immigration I do consider Bush a jackass. As to Giuliani being one of our "great leaders", I almost snorted coffee through my nose when I read that one.

As to what have I done? Enlisted in the Army in 1969, volunteered for Vietnam where I served from summer '69 to summer '70. Continued on active duty until '72.

Good enough? How about you, dolt?

A Man Who Serves His Country
"As to what have I done? Enlisted in the Army in 1969, volunteered for Vietnam where I served from summer '69 to summer '70. Continued on active duty until '72."

Touche!! A befitting answer, good sir! I am an admirer of the President, support most of his policies, and do not care for the description you use for him. But heck, you are a hero who has earned the right to speak his mind far more than those who never saw a day of real conflict in their lives.

Hats off to you and I sure will vote for you over Rudy any day.

Romney might make a good Secretary
I doubt if he can make it through the Presidential campaign- first of all you have to comprise a whole lot up here in MA to get anything done. Second he is not relaxed enough. Third. The conservatives just don't trust anyone from this state and his attempts to change his stands are not that believable. Fourth, his Lt. Governor is now running about 25 points behind her Democratic rival in the General election coming up in about a month. That does not speak well for his past few years. Grant it - it is very difficult to get anything done with these bone head liberal Democrats in Massachusetts. They are too controlled to decide anything themselves and way out on a limb compared to the rest of the country. Romney is a good man from the wrong place.

ksReaganite: Thank you
Actually, my comment regarding Bush was consciously hyperbolic, as I was trying to make a point. Generally, I support him, though I think he's off on a couple of issues.

Thanks for the kind words.

Lydia: Have faith
I don't think McCain, Giuliani or Romney are going to be the nominees. I'm with you; I don't like those guys either.

Clinton was elected in 1992. In 1990, nobody even knew who he was. He was an obscure governor of an obscure state.

Two years is a lifetime in politics.

religion more important than politics?
Lydia,

Sounds like you wouldn't vote for Romney in the GOP primaries due to your understanding of his religion. Ok.

What would you do in the general election if it were a "mormon-republican-campaigning-to-overturn-Roe-v-Wade" vs. a "protestant-democrat-abortion-rights-lover"? Is your dislike of Romney's religion so profound that you would forsake your commitment to those social issue viewpoints you share with him?

If I may ask, what do you want from a president?

Brian R
So cutting taxes, cutting government, reducing crime, increasing jobs, and, oh yeah, handling a catastrophe such as 9/11 are so insignificant, so "liberal," that they make you snort your coffee through your nose? Sad.

(Many of us have served our country in our armed forces. Most of us don't feel the need to boast on our service. And the more intelligent of us realize that our service helped, in part, to ensure that differing POVs can be expressed w/out resort to silly insults and name-calling. That is mature conservatism, sir.)

Howee: yes, you are a moron
YOU raised the issue of service, asking me the question, which I answered.

Now you try to deride me for answering it?

You're a certified lib-dolt.

Brian...
Perhaps I need to type more s-l-o-w-l-y so that you may understand. Any reasonably intelligent person would infer that I was asking what YOU have done/accomplished, given your immature comments, vis a vis the accomplishments of the well-respected mayor of NYC. (And we'll have to take it on faith that you actually did the service you claim.)

And how does any of this make me a "lib?" Again, try practicing mature conservatism; it is mouthbreathers such as yourself that give rise to the lib caricature (look it up, Brian) of conservatives as intolerant hate-mongers.

You are now dismissed.

Lydia, re: Romney's religion
It is quite possible that your understanding (as well as that of myriad others) of what "Mormonism" is, is quite incomplete and/or mistaken.

First of all, Mormon is only a nickname for the church's members. The official name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith, the religion's founder, said: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the apostles and prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." (History of the Church, 3:30.)

People call us "Mormons" because they know that we believe in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. What they often don't know is that part about "Another Testament of Jesus Christ," which is what the Book of Mormon is. We DEFINITELY believe in the Bible, also. In fact, many many scripture verses in both books of scripture are identical or very similar. (BTW, Mormon is the name of a prophet who lived on the American continent about 400 A.D., and who compiled and abridged the various 'books' within The Book of Mormon.)

Joseph Smith, Jr. translated The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, from ancient gold and brass plates. Those with other basic questions about what Mitt Romney believes in may want to check out http://www.mormon.org.

I can just share with you my personal Testimony (or witness) that Jesus Christ is the SAVIOR of ALL MANKIND, of whatever religion, belief, or non-belief. Jesus' RESURRECTION assures that the bodies of all humankind will rise from the grave. His infinite ATONEMENT made it possible for all, who will repent of their sins and follow Him, to return to live with our Heavenly Father (God the Father, Elohim) after this life. There is FAR MORE IN COMMON between "Mormons" and Catholics and other Christians, also believing Jews---than what divides us.

As to 2008, I could easily vote for George Allen, Sam Brownback, Mike Pence, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum, should one of them be the Republican nominee for President, because they share my values and are all good men of wisdom and integrity. I would find it extremely hard to vote for Guiliani or McCain, because in my opinion they are RINOs in too many ways, and of course do not stand up for the sanctity of life.

Questions Mr. Romney will have to answer
If Mr. Romney runs for president of the United States, is it not right that he should be asked tough questions about his positions on a wide range of subjects, not the least of which is his apparent belief in a book written by a man, the book of Mormon? It is a book which is in direct contradiction to the Book inspired by God. They cannot both be right.

Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Were the books and letters written by the Apostle Paul also inspired?
1 Corinthians 14:37 - If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

What does the Bible say about following “another gospel”, as the Book of Mormon claims itself to be?
Galatians 1:6 - I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Galatians 1:8 - But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Was he serious, did he really mean it, or was he exaggerating? To remove any doubt, he repeated the admonition again in the very next verse:
Galatians 1:9 - As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The Lord’s church was established by Jesus Christ, in Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost:
Acts 2:1 - And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Acts 2:47 - Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The Mormon church was established by Joseph Smith, in America, in 1830.

Consider the words of Apostle John:
1 John 4:1 - Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1 John 4:2 - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:4 - Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1 John 4:5 - They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1 John 4:6 - We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

The Bible warns against false prophets and false doctrine:

Matthew 7:15 - Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Ephesians 4:14 - That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

False prophecy of Joseph Smith:
Among the failed prophesies by Joseph Smith is one from 1835 predicting that “the coming of the Lord which was nigh -- even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.” (History of the Church, II:182). Jesus Christ did not return in 1891 as Mr. Smith prophesied. He presumed to speak in the name of God, but his word did not come to pass. What does the Bible say about prophets whose prophecies fail?

Deuteronomy 18:20 - But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deuteronomy 18:21 - And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deuteronomy 18:22 -When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

The Bible encourages us to test the words of men against the inspired Word of God:
Acts 17:11 - These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Did Joseph Smith, or do the current leaders of the Mormon church, encourage us to examine the foundational evidence of their faith? Did Joseph Smith not claim that the angel "Moroni" showed him gold plates, containing a record of an ancient people who inhabited America? And did Joseph Smith not translate and publish the "Book of Mormon" from these same gold plates? Will the Mormon church produce these gold plates for examination? It should be a simple thing, and one they are eager to do, if they believe the truth is with them.

If you were inclined to seek the truth about God and His revealed Will, in whom would you place your trust? In the words of a mortal man named Joseph Smith, born A.D. 1805? Or would you place your trust in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The Bible, which contains the inspired and inerrant Word of God, has been tested and scrutinized more severely than any book in history. It has been thoroughly examined and studied by the most learned of men from every era; though many have tried, not once has the Bible been successfully discredited, on any count. The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). I invite any man to try. Many have become believers who first set out to discredit the Word of God. The book of Mormon cannot withstand such scrutiny.


Here are some words by Joseph Smith:
“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet”. (History of the Church, VI: 408-409).

The historicity of Jesus Christ is not in question; the inspired Apostle John was just one among many who knew Him personally and witnessed His miracles and fulfillment of prophecy.

Here is just a small part of the Gospel of John:
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 12:48 - He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.


What does it say about the judgment of a man who would be president of the United States of America, if he has not judgment or discernment enough to see through the false doctrine of Mormonism?

That is the question Mr. Romney will ultimately be forced to answer. The truth has nothing to fear from a rigorous examination; what is true will stand, and what is false will be found out.

Mr. Romney cannot answer the questions about Mormonism without shining the light of truth on the doctrine of Joseph Smith. It is my hope that Mr. Romney will recognize his error when the truth about Mormonism becomes clear for the entire world to see. If he does, it will be too late to save his bid for the presidency; but much more importantly, it will be in time to save his soul, should he choose to act upon the knowledge of his error.

Mark 8:36 - For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Matthew 7:14 - Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

1 Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Amen.

Well, Howee, your manner of...
... of argument certainly has all the earmarks of the classic liberal bait-and-switch.

Pose a question, and then when you get an answer you don't like and that, in fact, makes you look foolish take the stance of saying "but THAT'S not what I meant".

Further, I don't give a hoot in he11 whether or not you believe me. I think it's particularly funny that, given your further casting of aspersions on my service, you made the implication in your previous post that you had served. To quote you: "Many of us have served our country in our armed forces". Didn't hear me question you on that, did you?

Well, Howee, the old saying goes that if it waddles and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

You're a lib.

Scott, have you ever READ the ??
Have you ever actually READ the Book of Mormon? If you had, you would know that it does NOT "contradict" the Bible, but repeats and in some cases elucidates the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ contained in the Bible. In fact, at the bottom of almost every page in The Book of Mormon are footnotes cross referencing to verses in the Bible, with scriptures which are mutually reinforcing the "Testament of Jesus Christ" and The Bible.

A correction: Joseph Smith did NOT WRITE The Book of Mormon--he TRANSLATED it, in your words "by inspiration of God." He COULD NOT have done that without divine help, as he was unschooled beyond the age of 10 or 12.

The Book of Mormon....
'cmon folks. No need to throw the pearls before the swine. No need at all. The New Testament was certainly not cannon scripture until much later when accepted by the masses. It is no different now. I say, of course God would contintue to speak to his people. Why would he not? With that set aside, we are going to be seeing the reason Mr. Romney has achieved so much with so little in that Blue State of Mass. We have a lot to see as the story unfolds. Please don't push the Mormon button, we're sick of it, already. He's a good, moral man. Period.

scott, you're off base
Scott,

Mormons know those scriptures well, and if I wanted I could bat each one of those out of the park for you. But there's something very important you're missing in all of this. Romney is not trying to get elected as your pastor!

As you stated, it IS certainly right that Romney should be asked tough questions on a wide variety of subjects. Why is it that your only question is about his religion? Do you actually think that this is the only question that matters for a president?

I'll repeat a question for you that Lydia hasn't answered yet. Is your dislike of Romney's religion so profound that you would forsake your commitment to those social issue viewpoints you share with him? Do you understand the role of the presidency?

The presidency is not a position to fill with your particular brand of religious doctrine. In doing so you trivialize both the presidency and your religion. Your concern with his religion as a litmus test for office runs against the very spirit of the Constitution.

Before all else.....
Before all else.............

Before all else, as a Christian, I believe in God...............

A few years ago, a Muslim friend inquired of my faith, as a Christian, what was it I believed... here is what I wrote...I learned much about myself and my spirituality through writing the reply.....

"Before all else, as a Christian, I believe in God, no matter by what name one chooses to call him.

Yes, I refer to myself as a Christian, since that is my background. I strongly believe in the principles lived and taught by Jesus the Christ, and am respectful of the pain, sacrifice and persecution suffered by Jesus the Man...

I am not a traditional Christian, in that I do not affiliate with any sect or denomination. That is by choice. I have experienced many of the Christian groups, but do not find my solace and exultation in organizations, buildings or the physical trappings, of any religious faith.

I am a simple man, as I speak directly to God each day, more as speaking with an older brother. In my prayers, I tell Him of my gratitude for all I receive, I admit my human frailties to Him and ask for His guidance in all things, I ask for little for myself, but to be in thought and purpose with His wishes, to help others in need, as I might. I beg His forgiveness, when I fall short of being the man He wishes me to be.

Through the years, I have been greatly blessed to meet and know people of many faiths and religions, I have become a better person, through learning from each of them, not from rigid dogma or ritual, but from the gentleness and honesty of their spirits, for it is not one religion or another that I find so important, it is spirituality. In my humble opinion and belief, it is in and through the spirit, we are one with our God and Creator and Provider. I think it is also true of our spiritual oneness with each other, no matter our religion or nationality. God is first, all other follows...."

Richard G. Shuster(from Rick's Random Ramblings, Before all else©)

I rather believe Mitt Romney listens and then follows the still small voice of the Spirit of God...those who spend precious energy tearing down others who share the same God, spend such time foolishly and wastefully and I suspect God does not look favorably foolish wastefulness.

Townhall.com

http://randomlyramblingrick.townhall.com/Default.aspx

Rick’s Random Ramblings© On-Line

http://xsorbit27.com/users5/unifiedveteranscoalition/index.php?board=80.0

admirable
Rick,

Your mention of your muslim friend reminds me of a principle from the Koran:

"Do not insult the gods of others, otherwise you are indirectly insulting your God."

No doubt pearls of truth can be found everywhere. I wish more Christians would follow this one.

For some of us..it's the slavery issue
For some of us, the matter of innocent life is like the slavery issue of the 1850s and 1860s that made the Republican Party. Just as most of the early founders of the GOP considered human bondage the sine qua non, so do we consider homicide a sine qua non. No matter how polished, charming, anti-crime, and job-creating a politician is, if he or she cannot plainly support the right to life of the innocent, for many Americans like myself he/she is not good enough. I am not pro-choice on slavery and not pro-choice on life. It behooves not a great nation to sink to the levels of savages who think the humanity of an innocent individual is dependent on the color of his skin or the place of his being. Any Republican (or Democrat) wanting my support to lead this country has to tell me honestly where he stands on this. Sorry, but David Duke and Rudy Guiliani do not pass that muster. A politician who cannot boldly affirm the inalienable right to life of all innocent Americans, black or white, Christian or Jew, born or unborn....is better suited to be in some backward place like Timbuctu, Boston, or Iran.

Clean House, NOW !!!
It has become perfectly clear that the time is now, to clean up our political house. In the upcoming elections, either local, state or national, do not vote to re-elect ANYONE already in office. Period.

If someone is running for office that has never been elected before, vote for them. I don't care if they are republican, democrat or independent. Vote for them, now.

And also, it's time for term limits as well. A maximum of two terms for any one person and then it's someone elses turn. Let's put an end to career politicians. The founding fathers never intended for our government to work that way.

Oh and while we're at it, its time to impeach and remove the Supreme Court justices that voted against the American People and their private property rights in the recent Kelo decision.

It time to clean house.

To Lydia and other crazy people!
Mormons and Evangelicals Christians have serious theological disputes, but since when do those effect anything political? If people of faith who share similar values can't come together politically on the things that are important to them then they are being counter productive. I realize that many Evangelicals would rather have one of their own as a candidate, but to say you would rather vote for someone who is a sleazy person who doesn't share your values because you don't like a persons theology is crazy! It is people like you that allow the left to brand the Christian right as bigotted,unsophisticated, and intolerant. Please don't prove them RIGHT!!!!!

judge a tree by its fruits
Lydia, to address your points:

1. Agree.
2. Agree.
3. Are you suggesting we don't need additional conservative justices on SCOTUS after Bush's term? How do you think R v W is going to get overturned? Romney advocates overturning R v W.
4. Comparing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Islam? Don't you know how to judge a tree by its fruits? Lydia, do yourself a favor and visit http://www.mormon.org so you can become informed.

Are you familiar with the book of Ezra from the Old Testament? God's purposes can indeed be accomplished by a leader who is a heathen theologically.

I'd suggest you think of a president in his/her proper role: the presidency. In applying your religious tests you trivialize both your religion and the government. You also run contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

A few questions for consideration...
It is not my intent or my desire to be disrespectful to anyone in this forum, and I appreciate the opportunity for reasoned discourse. It is in that vein that I offer the following for consideration, and I ask these questions.

Will anyone deny that Joseph Smith said the following?

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet”. (History of the Church, VI: 408-409).

What does it say about a man, the acknowledged founder of the Mormon faith, who would boast (his word, used twice!), who would exalt himself above not only the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, but even above the Son of God Himself? Is this not the very definition of blasphemy, in the most striking and undeniable terms?

Who will deny it?

Adding insult to injury, does he not contradict himself in his own exclamation?!? He says that he is “the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam”, and in the very next sentence he says “A large majority of the whole have stood by me”. Is it not a necessary inference that if a large majority stood by him, then at least a small minority must NOT have stood by him, thereby invalidating the prior claim that he was the “only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam”?

Does anyone else see this? Is anyone else troubled by it, in the least? Do terms like “self-contradiction” and “blasphemy” have any meaning at all?

Did Joseph Smith not claim that the angel "Moroni" showed him gold plates, containing a record of an ancient people who inhabited America? Was the book of Mormon not transcribed or translated from these plates? Is the book of Mormon not called “another Gospel”, “another Testament of Jesus Christ”? If the answer is yes, does that not fly completely in the face of Galatians 1:8 (“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”)? Are we just to ignore the clear and direct Word of God on this subject, when it could not be more plainly and obviously applicable, as if Galatians 1:6-12 was practically written in anticipation of just such a possible event?

Is a follower of Christ not simply called a Christian? When and where, exactly, did that happen?
Acts 11:26 - And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

In the book of Mormon, in Mosiah 18:8-30, does it not describe the beginning of the church in America in 147 B.C.? Does Verse 17 say "And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward."? However, that’s not possible, is it?

If the Bible is correct, Mosiah 18:8-30 cannot be, and vice-versa. The Bible teaches that the church did not exist until after Jesus was crucified and that Jesus was the founder of the church. But that didn’t happen in 147 B.C., did it?

In Matthew 16:18, we see that during His public ministry Jesus promised, "I will build my church." It did not exist yet (let alone in 147 B.C.). When it was established, Jesus would be its founder. Jesus purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28). Clearly this could not happen until after He died, which again was well after 147 B.C.

Does Ephesians 1:20-23 not tell us that Christ is the Head of His church, which is His body? But He did not become Head until after His resurrection (verse 20). Therefore the church could not have functioned before His resurrection, otherwise it would have been a body without a head.

Are we not told in 1 Corinthians 3:11 and Ephesians 2:20 that Jesus is the foundation, the chief cornerstone on which His church is built? The church could not exist and people could not become part of it until the foundation had been laid (Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:4-8). But Christ did not become the chief cornerstone until after He had been rejected and crucified (1 Peter 2:4-8; Acts 4:10-11).

If any church of any kind existed in America in 147 B.C., how could it possibly have been the Lord’s church? It would have been 180 years too early. It would have had the wrong founder and it could not have belonged to Jesus Christ because He had not paid for it yet. If such a church even existed, would it not have been a building without a foundation, and a body without a head?

Will anyone deny that Joseph Smith is the founder of the Mormon religion, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Will anyone deny that the Scriptures clearly state that Jesus Christ established His own church, and that on the day of Pentecost about 3,000 souls were added to His church (Acts 2:41)? Or that the Lord added to His church daily thereafter, such as should be saved (Acts 2:47)? Is it not clear that Jesus Christ founded His church, and Joseph Smith founded a different one? Can a Christian find salvation in any other church besides the Lord’s?

God gives much evidence for what He would have man believe;

What does Joseph Smith provide?

easy answers
Scott,

As I said before, I could answer every one of your questions...the reasoning and scriptural understanding in your line of attack is not solid. Now you sound like a thoughtful guy, so how about we exchange emails and I can present my side of things to you? Are you interested in understanding, or grandstanding for Town Hall?

Until then, I'll repeat my earlier questions to you which are relevant to the presidency. So far, I'm not sure that you can address these...

1. Is your dislike of Romney's religion so profound that you would forsake your commitment to those social issue viewpoints you share with him?
2. Do you understand the role of the president?

Romney is not trying to get elected as your pastor! The presidency is not a position to fill with your particular brand of religious doctrine. In doing so you trivialize both the presidency and your religion. Your concern with his religion as a litmus test for office runs against the very spirit of the Constitution.

One of Life's Little Secrets to Success
My goodness, some of these posts are comical. There are a few key traits that separate really effective people from the masses. Let's save the other traits for another sermon, but here's one little personal tip for you, my fellow Republicans.

So many of you cling so tightly to one little pet issue or another that you will never be able to embrace any candidate...or in a larger sense, the people who surround you everyday. What some lack is the ability to overlook petty differences to recognize the true value of a person. If you look for a candidate who shares every last trait and belief you do, you're going to end up having to run yourself. Even if you did find that identical candidate, you probably wouldn't like him/her that much. The same principle applies to the search for a spouse or friends.

In this case, I read silly comments that Mr. Romney didn't stop all abortion in a state dominated by pro-abortionists or that he doesn't share the same brand of Christianity, or that Massachussetts still has stricter gun laws than Wyoming or that Mitt didn't somehow manage to lock a legislature dominated 7 to 1 by Democrats in some box to miraculously make the sales tax decrease by .3% or whatever the heck other petty little difference you can scrape up in your mind. Hey folks, look beyond the minutae of life and seek out the common ground...you'll be MUCH MUCH more effective as a person.

I live in Belgium, where the political parties are very fragmented to the point that they can't accomplish anything. Each one hangs onto its little pet issue so hard that they refuse to merge with others who share 90% of the same beliefs. The result? Three separate governments, effective tax rates of over 50% and a social structure with no moral compass. Let's unify, folks.

In response to "easy answers"
Hi Murphy,

Thank you for your reply. I think you (and some others) may have misunderstood me entirely.

This is not about “my religion” vs. “someone else’s religion”. I do understand that Mr. Romney is not trying to get elected as my pastor. While I would be glad to have a president who believed that the Bible is the inspired word of God and the final authority in all things (to the exclusion of man-made creeds and doctrines), to the best of my knowledge the Bible does not require that such a man lead our country.

I am indeed interested in understanding any intellectually honest position, and I hope to communicate my own thoughts in such a way that I can be clearly understood as well. It has been asserted (twice now) that my points and questions can be easily answered. No one has actually tried to do so, but I welcome any such attempt.

I believe it is important to be careful in what I say and how I say it, hence my efforts to be as thorough and clear as I am able. Such an approach usually necessitates some effort and, where the written word is concerned, some length, but it is not intended as ‘grandstanding’.

I am not an unreasonable man, and my interest is in the truth, which I believe is both objective and knowable. God tells us that His Word is truth (John 17:17), and it was meant for us to understand. You would be doing me a great favor if you would explain to me where I am wrong, not based on any of the ever-changing creeds and doctrines of men, but based on God’s Word, which is the same today as it was yesterday, and will be the same until the end of the earth (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, Hebrews 13:8, etc.).

I am interested to read your comments, supported by Scripture (i.e., the Bible, book, chapter and verse). If you intend to use a text other than the Bible in response to the clear Bible passages I have used, does it not stand to reason that you will first have to successfully discredit the Bible before you can expect anyone to consider a different text, one that contradicts the Bible?

I maintain that the writings contained within the Bible are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). God, being perfect and knowing the beginning from the end, could not contradict Himself and cannot lie (Titus 1:2). I further maintain that the book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. In other words, it is only fair and reasonable that you would show me, and all of us, why the Bible is wrong, before you would show us why the book of Mormon is right.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the following concerns directly.


1. “Is your dislike of Romney's religion so profound that you would forsake your commitment to those social issue viewpoints you share with him?”

It has nothing to do with my like or dislike of either Mr. Romney or his religion. I would imagine he is a decent man, and I have no reason to think that the majority of those who practice the Mormon faith are not decent and sincere people. But I ask, was Cornelius not a sincere and decent man (Acts 10:2, Acts 10:22)? He still needed to hear the Gospel from someone who could tell it to him (Acts 10:5-6, Acts 10:22, Acts 10:32-33), did he not? He and his family were not saved until they obeyed the Gospel and were baptized (Acts 10:47-48).

Saul of Tarsus was certainly a decent man, well educated in Jewish Law by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Who would question his zeal and sincerity, or that he had a clear conscience, when he persecuted Christians? (see Acts 26:9-11)

But Saul, later called Paul, found out that he was sincerely wrong when he encountered the Lord on the road to Damascus, did he not? (see Acts 9:6, Acts 22:10, Acts 26:13-18) Paul was converted on the road to Damascus, and he believed; he was saved when he was baptized for the remission of his sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

My point is that one can certainly be sincere in one’s beliefs, and yet be sincerely wrong. Of course, I might be sincerely wrong too; how would I know? By testing what I hear, read and believe against what the Bible actually says.

It is not personal and it is not about me. It is about the truth, and the judgment of a man who may run for president, but who is seemingly content to ignore the truth, the facts and the evidence, as if he believed that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around it. Do you see the difference?

We are all free to believe whatever we like. If you profess to believe something which can be plainly shown as untrue, you are still free to believe it. You may be a good neighbor and also a friend, but I would not trust your reasoning abilities with something as serious as the governance of our nation. As I said from the beginning, it is a question of Mr. Romney’s judgment:

From my first post:
“What does it say about the judgment of a man who would be president of the United States of America, if he has not judgment or discernment enough to see through the false doctrine of Mormonism?

That is the question Mr. Romney will ultimately be forced to answer. The truth has nothing to fear from a rigorous examination; what is true will stand, and what is false will be found out.”

His judgment necessarily impacts everything he would do as president. If there is a “litmus test”, that is it. My concern over his judgment should be well within both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.


2. “Do you understand the role of the president?”

Sure, and for the sake of time and space, I believe the role of the president is reasonably well described at the online Encyclopedia Britannica: http://tinyurl.com/s6z56


3. Do you actually think that this is the only question that matters for a president?”

It is certainly not the only question, but it is a serious one since it calls his judgment into doubt. Any deeply held religious convictions must, by their nature, become the foundation of an individual’s worldview, would you not agree? Is it not the rock (or sand…) upon which he or she stands? Here is the problem: if a deeply held religious belief can be demonstrated as false, to anyone who chooses to seriously examine the evidence with an honest heart and an open mind, the foundation of that worldview is not only called into question, it is compromised.

At that point, an individual must choose; does he admit his error and reject what he now knows to be false? Or does he sear his conscience, harden his heart and continue in his error? It can be very difficult to admit and then reject error of this kind. The pressure from family, friends and career (to name only a few) to continue in error despite one’s newly found knowledge of the truth can be intense. For someone who is considering a bid for the presidency of the United States, is the gravity of the situation not multiplied exponentially?


4. “Why is it that your only question is about his religion?

As I have tried to explain, my question is about his judgment. In order to qualify my concerns about his judgment, it was necessary to:

A) Focus on something about which we could reasonably expect Mr. Romney to have given thoughtful and careful consideration; nothing is more obvious or prominent in this regard than his Mormon beliefs, which I think even supporters would admit are not without controversy.

B) Examine those core beliefs in light of the archeological record, in light of inconsistencies within the belief system itself, in light of testimony given by the founder of the belief (and any available witnesses), and in light of other teaching that has long withstood the test of time (the Bible), in order to demonstrate that rational support for a core belief in Mormon doctrine is lacking.

Does Mormon doctrine explain why the Bible was insufficient for accomplishing God’s will? Seems like a big mistake for God to have made, one requiring a clear, thorough and rational explanation that does not contradict Scripture. Is such an explanation forthcoming?

Does Mormon doctrine explain why it is not a direct violation of Galatians 1:8? The Mormon faith can’t even justify its own existence without satisfactorily answering at least those two basic questions. I am sure explanations can be offered; do the explanations contradict other Bible Scripture?

Do the explanations, if presented, really even make any sense? In the final analysis, is there anything objective at all to support Mormon doctrine, anything at all besides Joseph Smith’s word, the word of a failed prophet who exalted himself above the Son of God?

To allow such error to become the foundation of one’s worldview is incompatible with the requisite judgment one would have reason to expect a potential leader of the United States to possess.

I encourage a thorough examination of the Bible. Truth has no reason to resist or avoid careful examination, and the Bible welcomes such scrutiny, in fact it demands to be examined. Should not those who believe in the book of Mormon (and associated texts, “Pearl of Great Price” and “Doctrine & Covenants”) not also welcome a thorough public examination of the same?

Would asking one not to question Mr. Romney’s judgment regarding his Mormon beliefs not be like asking one not to question the judgment of someone who believes the earth is flat? Should we not question the judgment of a man if he believes the sun revolves around the earth?

Men have indeed believed both at various points in history, but once those beliefs were confronted with irrefutable evidence, (most) men changed their beliefs accordingly (and the Bible tells us the earth isn’t flat, but as usual, men decided they knew better: “[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers” Isaiah 40:22).

If a man desires serious consideration for the presidency of the United States, is it not incumbent upon him to explain the reasoning, judgment and discernment he exercised in deciding to follow the teachings of a man named Joseph Smith? If he was to be elected, wouldn’t that same intellectual ability to judge, reason and discern be applied to everything he does as President?

If his judgment can legitimately be called into question on the matter of evidence and simple logic concerning his belief in the teaching of Joseph Smith, is his judgment on every other matter requiring careful consideration and the evaluation of available evidence not necessarily called into question as well?

I expect the usual arguments to be made by his supporters to silence debate on the subject, but if Mr. Romney runs for president, his beliefs will eventually come under close scrutiny in the national spotlight. When that happens, the American people will see the problems and contradictions inherent in the Mormon faith, not only when compared to the Bible (which they may or may not believe in), but also when the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon faith are compared to itself (or the archeological record, or any other objective standard, for that matter).

One must assume that deeply held religious convictions are of great importance to the person who holds them. For those who conclude that the teachings of Joseph Smith are beyond the bounds of reason and sound judgment, are they not obligated to conclude that Mr. Romney’s judgment in other matters of great importance might also be awry?

We all have free moral agency, and in our great country we have the right to believe whatever we choose. It is not a matter of dislike toward either Mr. Romney or his chosen religion. However, the acknowledgment of free moral agency is not tantamount to the endorsement of error. When error is so grievous that it strains credulity, judgment is necessarily called into question.

Mr. Romney would be free to believe that the earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around it, and he is free to believe the teaching of Joseph Smith. However, if he continues to believe any such thing when evidence to the contrary is laid out before him (as it surely will be, in the heated contest of a presidential election), then I contend that his judgment, or lack thereof, is a legitimate consideration for the American voter.

It was in the beginning, and it is still, respectfully, a question of judgment.

The Bible teaches that we should study and learn to properly handle the Word of God (2 Timothy 2:15). We should be ready to answer anyone who asks the reasons for our beliefs, and to do so respectfully, and with humility (1 Peter 3:15).

I am willing to give a reasoned defense for my beliefs. I am not as skilled or knowledgeable as I would like to be, but I am learning. I may not come across in writing as humble as I mean to be, or as respectful as I hope you would find me to be in person.

My defense is not perfect, but I maintain that the Word of God is. I urge everyone to compare what I have said, and what anyone else says, to what the Bible says.

See for yourself, whether those things are so.

sounds interesting
Scott,

Can I suggest a couple of ground rules (for both of us) before we get any deeper into a conversation?

1. Organization of questions and answers.
2. Brevity when possible.
3. No duck-and-dodge attacks.

In other words, I answer your questions and you answer mine. We focus more on understanding each other than on scoring cheap shots. We are open to the possibility that we're wrong. And whenever possible, brevity will help keep the scope of the conversation on topic.

Too often when speaking on religion topics, I've met people who pound me with questions and completely ignore my replies. Other times people dictate to me what I believe rather than listen. This type of dialogue is a waste of time for everyone.

At any given time our convictions are what they are, but hopefully we're both open to the possibility of being wrong.

judgment
Scott,

Your core argument rests on considering Romney's religion as a test of his judgment and suitability for office. That's just not correct, here's why.

You say that anyone who accepts Mormon doctrine does not have the judgment or discernment necessary to be president. There is a great difference between what I’ll call “secular judgment” and “theological judgment”. When you evaluate someone’s judgment or intelligence with respect to their secular performance, it is completely absurd to consider their theological beliefs.

Can you show that Mitt Romney has lacked any judgment in his long and successful career in private industry? How about his turnaround of the Salt Lake Olympics? How about his handling of the governorship of Massachusettes? How about his completion of a dual Law and MBA Degree from Harvard in 5 years at the top of his class? None of these performances are indicative of someone lacking judgment or intelligence.

Can you explain why Utah was ranked in 1996 as 7th academically in the nation despite the fact that it was ranked 49th in the nation in terms of per pupil spending? How can mormons lacking judgment outperform the majority of the US academically? (Citation: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html)

In fact, a common question I've gotten from some folks is "How can an otherwise intelligent individual as yourself believe in mormonism?". I'm not kidding! Can you believe the arrogance in questioning all evidence of a person's intelligence based on whether they share your doctrinal belief system?

I can give you any number of examples showing that good judgment, discernment, and intelligence have little correlation to theological particulars. The presidency only requires secular judgment. Some of our greatest examples of presidents were men who lacked theological judgment, you surely can’t argue with this. Feel free to take issue with Romney’s theological judgment, but this bears absolutely no relevance to the tasks he performs in a secular role.

questions one at a time
Scott,

You said "It has been asserted (twice now) that my points and questions can be easily answered. No one has actually tried to do so, but I welcome any such attempt."

Well, you've written about 4 pages of questions and accusations. For us to go back and forth answering dozens of questions per post, with scriptures and explanations...that could take a while and get pretty chaotic. I really do have answers to every one of your questions, but I'm simply not going to try and sort through 50 questions all slammed together in one big post.

So I'll kick things off with ONE of your questions. Feel free to respond, ask a new question, or repeat an old question from earlier. This bottlenecking should focus on your primary doctrinal concerns first.

Hopefully you're still checking back here.

----- #1: Christ's Church ------
"Is a follower of Christ not simply called a Christian? When and where, exactly, did that happen?
Acts 11:26 - And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

"In the book of Mormon, in Mosiah 18:8-30, does it not describe the beginning of the church in America in 147 B.C.? Does Verse 17 say "And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward."? However, that’s not possible, is it?"
------------------------

This isn’t contradictory at all. The chapters of Acts you cite are talking about the followers of Jesus in Antioch. The verses in Mosiah you cite are talking about the followers of Jesus in America. Neither quote claims that these followers represented ALL the followers of Christ. Consider John 10:16...

John 10:16 -- And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

Christ is on record claiming other followers to whom he would minister. This does not refer to the nations of the "gentiles" - people not of the House of Israel - for they would hear the Gospel through the mouths of Christ's servants, not from him directly, for he was sent only "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). John 10:16 refers to the lost sheep of the house of Israel spoken of in in the Book of Mormon.

Also consider Ezekiel chapter 37. The text contains a prophecy of the gathering of the tribes of Israel from all over the Earth into a single people following God, living in a covenant relationship with God, with His sanctuary in their midst. We see the gathering of ancient scripture - that of Judah (Bible) and Joseph (Book of Mormon) - as part of the process for the gathering of Israel, which occurs by the preaching of the Gospel and the restoration of the covenants of God with His people. Those who are baptized into the Church are brought into the House of Israel. To those not descended from the tribes of Israel, it is by adoption. But the work of the Church is that of gathering people into the everlasting covenant of Christ, the Holy One of Israel. And the Book of Mormon is an important part of that process, intended to show the scattered remnants of Israel who they are, to teach them of the covenants that God has made with His people, and to convince them (and all that will hear) that Jesus is the Christ, the Promised Messiah.

Thanks Murphy
You are without a doubt the more tolerant.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.