Mitt Romney for President

Presidential hopefuls have begun the “silent primaries,” where they raise money and line up campaign staff. I have been looking at the candidates. Very interesting is Mitt Romney. He is clearly a highly intelligent man with a proven record of achievement, who as a Republican managed to get elected governor in one of the bluest states. He seems to have only two problems: he is too good to be true and he is Mormon.

Religious bigotry is not gone. In fact a 43% of the respondents said they would not vote for a Mormon, in a poll done a couple months ago. This might change as people get to know the man. It is easier to hate in the abstract. Romney's biggest challenge may well be the Republican primaries. Evangelical voters may mistrust him now, but they seem to be warming to him. They certainly can recognize a fellow person of faith.

Once he gets to the general election, Romney will soundly thrash any of the likely Democratic contenders. He has none of Hilary’s baggage, all of Obama’s charm and intelligence PLUS more significant executive experience than those two put together with John Edwards thrown in. Beyond that, Mitt Romney has a proven ability to get elected in a heavily Democratic state. The only Democrat who might have matched his intelligence, experience and ability to appeal to independents is Virginia's Mark Warner, who has decided to sit this election out. Sorry, Dems, we will taunt you a third time.

I have a tough decision. I supported McCain in 2000 and intended to support him again for 2008. McCain or Romney, as well as Giuliani would make better presidents than any of the leading Democrats, so I will have no doubts about the November elections, but what to do in New Hampshire or South Carolina earlier in the year?

Posted by Jack at January 21, 2007 2:24 AM
Comment #204263


Posted by: BillS at January 21, 2007 3:03 AM
Comment #204267

Jack: you seem to have forgoten that the Christian right is now the backbone of the Republican party. Romney has more baggage than Carter has little liver pills. He sold his soul to the heathen liberals to become Governor of hell on earth. I guess you are counting on the forgiving nature of Christians. Flip flopping is ok if it is done RIGHT.

Bills: Just because Brownback ask Hillary to forgive him for all of the terrible wrongs he did to her doesn’t mean he would make a good presidential candidate.

Posted by: jlw at January 21, 2007 3:55 AM
Comment #204273

Flip flopping is not the same as just changing your mind. The change can be a big decision that you can respect even if you do not agree. The problem with Kerry flip flopping is not that he changed his mind. It is that he never made it up in the first place or when he did he was wrong and pretended to take the opposite. The problem was one of his persistent character, not one of change.

Re forgiveness - this is the very basis of Christianity. The part that non-Christians do not seem to get it that the basic catechism assume that everybody will sin and make mistakes, sometimes really big ones. Many of the great stories talk about a person lost and then redeemed.

Think of the song, “Amazing Grace” written by a former slave trader. There is nothing you cannot be forgiven for IF you are sincere in your change.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2007 9:12 AM
Comment #204279

You mean we cant pick a guy who is just really cool? How about some guy who wears cool shades and can really handle a sax. How about someone who is a first. Thats pretty cool. Do we have a first black/woman/gay/web-toed/hunch-backed/buddhist/celebrity/poligamist/cannibal to elect?
Yeah, that would be cool!

Posted by: JoeRWC at January 21, 2007 11:04 AM
Comment #204280


Mitt Romney is the flip-flopper extraordinaire. There was a devastating Boston Globe piece on this point:

For example, here are the Two Romneys are abortion:

Romney 1

I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it… . You will not see me wavering on that.

Romney 2

I am pro life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

I think the issue isn’t so much the flip-flopping as such, as that he has flip-flopped on issues so dear to the hearts of the conservative Republican base. I can’t believe that he will survive the primaries.

Having said that, if you guys really want to nominate him, he is probably one of the least objectionable candidates from my point of view. Which is why he is probably toast.

I would say the same thing about Giuliani, by the way. Actually he is even in worse shape than Romney, because he has been consistently liberal. But once again, if you guys want to nominate him, fine with me…

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 21, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #204281

Furthermore, I think the flip-flopping actually exacerbates the Mormon issue. If he is going to try to satisfy the fundamentalist Protestants by saying he agrees with them on the major issues, it would be entirely fair for one of his Republican opponents to question the sincerity of these convictions…

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 21, 2007 11:23 AM
Comment #204282


I believe abortion should be legal, but I also believe it is usually wrong. I think Roe v Wade was a big mistake and that abortion laws should be a state jurisdiction, but I also respect the doctrine of stare decisis. Abortion is a very complex issue and since it is so emotional, it is hard to articulate any position the does not simultaneously look absolutist and flip flopping.

As usual, it will depend on who the other candidates are and lots of luck, as well as the merits of the candidate himself.

The big difference between Dems and Republicans is that we have three good top contenders, where as you guys have nobody who is both attractive and has relevant experience. I am very confident that we will keep the White House in 2008. McCain/Guiliani/Romney can kick the crap out of Hilary/Obama/Gore/Edwards/Kerry and my personal favorite troll Kucinich, not to mention the veteran race baiter Sharpton.

The two Virginians are out, one voluntarily, the other less so. Your Virginian was your best shot. I kinda like Vilsack or Richardson, but they are too DLC for the red meat guys at and the assorted Bush haters in the bowels of the party.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2007 11:29 AM
Comment #204283
Abortion is a very complex issue and since it is so emotional, it is hard to articulate any position the does not simultaneously look absolutist and flip flopping.

Oh come on, Jack. Romney 1 gives the mainline Democratic position on abortion. Romney 2 gives the mainline Republican position. Sure, it is a complex issue, but you can’t deny that the parties have two clear positions, and Romney switched when it became convenient to be a good Republican.

The big difference between Dems and Republicans is that we have three good top contenders, where as you guys have nobody who is both attractive and has relevant experience. I am very confident that we will keep the White House in 2008.

I’m not seeing a difference. Romney’s political experience is four years as Gov. of Mass. Giuliani was a mayor. Only McCain can really claim to have more experience than the major Democratic candidates.

We’ll see if your confidence was justified. I think the Iraq War will still be a drag on the GOP.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 21, 2007 11:47 AM
Comment #204286

Hey, Jack. Just wanted to let you know, as a MA citizen: this guy is a rat. Although he hasn’t been proven as such, I am certain he has some connection with the Big Dig scandals. This guy is corrupt, and a weasel. Even though I am a Dem, I would rather McCain or Giuliani over this guy. They are both intelligent and seemingly less corrupt men.

Posted by: Michael at January 21, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment #204288

Actually, I think McCain is the LEAST exerienced. Executive experience is much different from senatorial experience.

Both Romney and Guiliani ran things where they had to manage. Romney has an excellent resume, which is one reason I like him.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #204289

I mentioned Brownback because he is the most beatable,of course. Hell,I might even send him a few bucks.Giuliani,with his interesting business dealings should be in the same category.Personally I would be embarassed to affiliate with any party whose major block would not vote for someone just because he belongs to a different Christian sect than they do. What are they worried about? Will he introduce poligamy?Probably.Keep up the overconfidence. Remember we are Dems. The early frontrunners almost never win the nomination. I am leaning toward a Richardson/Vilsack ticket myself. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party is not united.Obama is interesting. Unfortunately he would be the target of every white supremisists out there. We have had our candidates murdered before.

Posted by: BillS at January 21, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #204290

I think it’s funny that you think the liberals in the Democratic party are more extreme than the ultra-conservatives in your own party. If Richardson is out because he’s not liberal enough, Giuliani doesn’t have a prayer on the conservative side. The Democrats just elected a bunch of moderate congressmen, and I don’t think the ultra-left has as much sway as you think. Democratic voters may like a guy who can negotiate a cease-fire in Darfur as a private citizen, rather than another republican who thinks that bombs are the answer to everything. If we actually want to solve problems in the world, RIchardson is the guy. He is also wildly popular in a red state, and so knows how to reach across the aisle.
Romney would be my choice for GOP, though, for much the same reason. He worked with democrats to get MA’s health care legislation done, and I respect that.

Posted by: Brian Poole at January 21, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #204291


I like McCain & Guiliani too.

I could tell you were a Dem when you said that Romney was has not done anything you could point to, but he must be corrupt. Usually it is a good idea to have a reason to believe something, but I know that Dems trust their feelings. It is the usual “fitzmas’ syndrome.

When did they start digging that big dig, BTW, and when did Romney come to MA?

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2007 12:30 PM
Comment #204292

Jack: Actually, I think Bills has probably picked the man. Brownback will win Iowa and catapult to the nomination. Everyone sees how old and tired McCain is. Giuliani and Romney would probably make decent centrist presidents but, they will be fighting for the same votes and you have to face facts, the Christian right is in the drivers seat and a good Christian conservative like Brownback will get their attention.

Posted by: jlw at January 21, 2007 12:33 PM
Comment #204294

At one time I liked both Guiliani and McCain, but now would never consider voting for either of them. I won’t forget their support of president Bush’s policies and neither will a majority of Americans.

Posted by: Max at January 21, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #204295


The jury is literally still out on Fitzmas. At the very least, it would have to be gratifying to one of your hypothetical Bush haters to see Cheney on the witness stand.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 21, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #204296


“We have had our candidates murdered before”.

4 of our presidents assasinated in office, three were republican, Lincoln,Garfield,and McKinley. One Democrat J.Kennedy.
12 more attempted assasinations.
6 republicans, T.Roosevelt 2 attepts against him,Nixon,Ford two attepts on him,Reagan and G.H.W.Bush.5 democrates, A. Jackson,F.D.Roosevelt,Truman,Carter and Clinton.

Posted by: dolan at January 21, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment #204301

And if the dims have Barack Hussein Obama, the Muslim, as their candidate, how does that change the scope?

Posted by: tomh at January 21, 2007 3:24 PM
Comment #204302

This is an AWESOME site about Mitt Romney and him running for President. On this site there is a lot of great information about him all amassed in just one place. I highly recommend taking a look at the
site and forwarding it to everyone who may be interested.

Don’t forget to BOOKMARK, the site is updated multiple times daily!

Posted by: Mitt Report at January 21, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #204303

I’m not exactly sure what “Hillary’s baggage” is?
That she headed a commission on health care in the early 90’s that made recommendations that are increasingly relevant today to a problem that, by any measure, has gotten worse?
That she stayed in a marriage with a man who has repeatedly cheated on her? Would you also say that the ministers wife in Colorado “has baggage” because she is standing by a husband who seems to have a preference for taking in the shorts?
That she has been repeatedly investigated by the Republicans over many years with much money spent with all of it coming to nothing?
What exactly is Hillary’s baggage?

Re: Romney and Mormonism, I’d like to recommend Krakour’s book Under the Banner of Heaven. It is a revealing (but admittedly prejudiced) look at Mormon history, culture, philosophy. It would be difficult for me to embrace someone who followed the teachings of Smith.
McCain, Brownback and Guilliani are all thoughtful Republicans who would make competent presidents

Posted by: charles Ross at January 21, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #204305


I hope you are right. Clinton did a good job of kicking the leftists down the street, at lease from 1994-8 and the recent Dem win depended on marginalizing the left wing. But I do think all those lefties (including the blogoshere wing we often see represented around here, are going to want to creep back into the halls of power and lefties like Pelosi, Conyers or Waxman are already there.

BTW, this Darfur thing is solved then?


I do not see Brownback in the presidential future. If you are right, the Dems will probably win.


For all the sound and fury of the Herculean effort of a special prosecutor and legions of liberals, we have one poor guy indicted on perjury charges and NO underlying crime. How come when we found out the source was Armitage nobody even considered going after him? Bush haters will get the same gratification Clinton haters got. Hate is a silly emotion.


Hilary’s baggage is either something you see or you do not. A significant part of the voting public has a strong negative view of her. I see Hilary care as a debacle; I think the Rose law firm record scandal showed her personality etc. Still and all, if Hilary governed like her husband, I would complain a lot, but I could live with it. She is lucky that the Dems have shifted enough to make her the moderate middle.

Re Mormonism, it is not right to condemn a whole religion, especially one whose adherents seem expceptionally peaceful, hardworking and good as citizens.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2007 4:20 PM
Comment #204311


I think the whole Fitzmas thing shows more about the right than the left. You guys comfort yourselves with that thought of disappointed liberals tearing their clothes in mourning. Whatever gets you guys through the dark times…

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 21, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment #204312

Hillary will have a very experienced foreign policy advisor right behind her, Bill. And she lived through 8 years of Presidential decision making by her husband, Bill. Her insight into the Presidency is unique and bests any other candidate. Whether or not voters agree with her plans remains to be seen. But, in terms of experience, it would be hard to find anyone eligible with more experience. She was probably as privy if not more so to the White House decision making process than the V.P. during the Clinton years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 21, 2007 4:52 PM
Comment #204313

Anyone who thinks Romney can win the GOP nomination should watch the first 90 seconds of this video:

What is deliciously ironic is that Ted Kennedy accuses Romney of flip-flopping on abortion, and he defends his liberal, pro-Roe position as the final word.

He’s toast.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 21, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #204317

No, of course Darfur isn’t solved yet. However, some of the more pressing issues have been addressed, there has been movement towards peace, and there are now more promises about which international pressure can be applied if they are broken.


Re: Romney and Mormonism, I’d like to recommend Krakour’s book Under the Banner of Heaven. It is a revealing (but admittedly prejudiced) look at Mormon history, culture, philosophy. It would be difficult for me to embrace someone who followed the teachings of Smith.
Wow, a sweeping condemnation after reading an admittedly biased book. That’s convincing. Try going to a mormon church and seeing what is actually taught, or talking to members of the Mormon church to see what they believe, instead. It may be enlightening. Posted by: Brian Poole at January 21, 2007 5:44 PM
Comment #204318

The Democrats will decide who their 2008 presidential candidate will be. As things stand now, it is Hillary’s to lose. Unless she makes some terrible no no, she will get the nomination.

The Republican contest is still up for grabs. McCain still has to be considered the front runner. Ultimately, the Republicans will decide who their candidate will be. Iraq will figure more in their nominee than the Democrats decision.

Who will control Congress and who will occupy the White House in 2009 will be decided as much by the Iraqi people as the American people.

No matter what the Democrats do in Congress reguarding Iraq, our president and vice president have no intentions to and will not leave iraq. As far as they are concerned, America should not leave Iraq until Iraq has no more oil or, at least, until the Iraqis can protect the oil and the American oil companies. Also, the administration may wait until right after the election to attack Iran and go after their oil. With this administration, their goals are easy to discern but their timetable isn’t. They may attack Iran before the election and then try the old strategy, we are stronger on defense and America will be doomed if Hillary becomes president when we are fighting for our lives in three countries. I don’t believe that strategy will work but, this administration has a well documented history of doing what will not work.

If Iraq is stable and Exxon/Mobil is pumping oil in november,2008, the Republicans stand to win in the elections. If the Iraqi people are still engaged in civil war/power struggle, the Republicans will be overwhelmed by the avalanche. The only survivors might be those who opposed their president.

Posted by: jlw at January 21, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #204319

tomh: Mr. Obama is not a Muslim — as I am sure your know by the tone of your libel.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at January 21, 2007 6:06 PM
Comment #204324


Racism is deeply embedded in the mormon religion. Romney would need to specifically reject the racist statements made by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the other Prophets, and condemn them for being immoral, wrong, and if anyone prefers a theological bent, evil. This applies both to mormon theology as it applies to American Indians and blacks.

If Romney embraces mormon racism, homophobia, and misogeny, well, he is welcome to do so. As Jack points out, we are suppposed to tolerate the intolerant. However, I do not think such a person would be a good candidate for President.

Tell everybody about the planet Kolob. I have to admit, a mormon president finishing a State of the Union address by invoking the Heavenly Father and then talking about the plantet Kolob would keep me glued to every single speech.

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #204327

“Racism is deeply imbedded in the Mormon religion”
So Romney will be a shoe in for much of the REP party then?

Posted by: BillS at January 21, 2007 7:14 PM
Comment #204328

We all know Harry Reid(D)is a Mormon too, right?

Posted by: 037 at January 21, 2007 7:34 PM
Comment #204329

No .Thanks for the input. Generally ,as a post Christian secular humanist, I get a fair amount of amusment watching various bizarre sects quibble about which set of foolishness is less stupid.. The planet Kolob is a pretty good one,almost as good as accusations of a gay teletubby, or the sanctity of ritual cannibalism.Each to their own I guess. What a country.

Posted by: BillS at January 21, 2007 7:46 PM
Comment #204330

Joseph Smith received revelations from god, that he used to write the book of mormon, by putting pebbles into a cap and then putting his face into the cap to read the pebbles (actually, I don’t know if he read the pebbles or if they talked to him, but you get the point)
Of course the mormon church is not racist, a man named kimball, who headed the church back in the 70’s, had a “revelation from god” that it was now sanctioned to accept blacks into leadership positions.
Now, what have I said above that is not true?. And if it is true, what further do I need to know about this group that would convince me that they are both sane and ethical?

Posted by: charles Ross at January 21, 2007 7:57 PM
Comment #204331

I can relate. I was raised a Catholic, but have fallen into disfavor. They (Catholics and Mormons) have no monopoly on weird beliefs. I do find the Mormon underpants thing a hoot though. Now I have to go check out this Planet Kabob thing. Sounds taisty.

Posted by: 037 at January 21, 2007 7:58 PM
Comment #204332

I actually have the book of Mormon On my shelf but can’r remember for the life of me how I got it. But he got his info about the gold tablets from an angel. At any rate I live near where the tablets were found. Every year they put on a great show about Joseph and the Dream Coat. Donny Osmond used to come and participate every year. This is only relevent because I used to think his sister was hot. OK, I admit it is only relevent to me.

Posted by: 037 at January 21, 2007 8:04 PM
Comment #204334


Other Mormon politicians include Orrin Hatch & Morris Udall, who once ran for president.

The Church of the Latter Day Saints Prophet, Seer, & Revelator Spencer Kimball received a revelation in 1978, permitting blacks to become memebers of the Mormon priesthood, thus giving them full recognition as human beings with souls.

Nice religion.

Hopefully, Romney is a MINO- a mormon in name only- and does not take his religion seriously, or if he does, only in a allegorical sense. But since he did missionary work, most likely he is a true believer, and accepts some truly bizarre beliefs.

It would be fun to Romney launch a national search for DNA evidence proving the Nephites and Lamanites came from Israel, and enjoyed a flourishing civilization in America for a thousand years, ending @ 1600 years ago, when the Lamainites (evil American Indians) finished off the Nephites (good white people). The rationalizations surrounding archaelogical digs would be an absolute hoot.

Perhaps Romney will issue Joseph Smith a posthumous pardon, and overturn the guilty verdict from The State of New York v Joseph Smith, for which Joseph Smith was found guilty of fraud? Or publicly give a big thumbs up, approving the 27 - 40 celestial marriages of Prophet Joseph Smith, including to girls as young as 14, such as Helen Mar Kimball?

Yes, I am being pretty harsh, but then, it is his religion, he is a man of faith, and as a yojng man, he went out as a missionary, and attempted to convert others to his beliefs.

Most likely he would not bring his private beliefs into the public arena. But since we are talking about the presidency, private beliefs become fair game.

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2007 8:20 PM
Comment #204336

The site linked above has some choice stuff on the planet Kobol… Nuttier than a fruitcake… maybe they are joking?

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #204337

charles Ross
There really is no shortage of quaint and silly beliefs handed down to us by our religious forefathers of all faiths. Most are relics of a less cynical and analytical time(but there are a few new doozies). Useing them as a basis to pick or not someone for an important secular office is less germaine than their policies,integrity,and intelligence. If I had to pick a Rep candidate it would be Romny. He’s the best of a bad lot but as Jack pointed out he would be hard to beat. Fortunately for us the Reps will stick to their old strategy of picking the worst common denominator and then try to achieve victory by savagly smearing the opposition.Most Americans have finally wised up to that.

Posted by: BillS at January 21, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #204338

Evangelical Christians have some pretty weird views also. but as I said earlier so do most religions when you get down to the nitty gritty. As far as the missionary work I think they all do that. Kinda like confirmation for a Catholic, But more involved. Most do it because it is what is expected in their micro-culture. Hey I’m not defending the guy. I’m considering joining the Raelians myself.

Makes just as much sense as the rest of it to me.

Posted by: 037 at January 21, 2007 8:37 PM
Comment #204343


Re fitzmas - it was the blue side that made such a big deal. I kept on saying that we should just wait to figure out the facts. When the facts came out, there was nothing there. I am just pointing this out. You guys tend to jump the guy.


So we are counting on nepotism. Isn’t that the problem we had with Hilary care?

Besides, Bill had lots of good traits, but he wasn’t all the good at foreign policy.


Promises are not hard to get. A lot of dead people were promised lots of things.

Phx8, BillS et al

Turn around is a good measure of fairness. Substitute your favorite ethnic group for Mormon and let’s see how it sounds to you. Maybe liberals should try some of their famous outreach & tolerance skills with people closer to home. And you wonder why people of faith have little faith in liberals.

BTW - what about Harry Reid. You didn’t hear any of us resorting to religious bigotry. Maybe you can go to the Republican tolerance school. I think Dems might be able to get a special needs scholarship.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #204346

Jack: The Republican tolerance school is ran by your former Senator Allen isn’t it?

Posted by: jlw at January 21, 2007 10:06 PM
Comment #204348

Promises are easy to break, but they’re a step. If any of the things that Richardson negotiated for work out, we’ll be better off than we were before, and that was after a one-time, very short visit.

Everybody else,

About Mormons, yes, we have some beliefs that other people would consider strange. Most religions do. If you don’t believe them, you shouldn’t join the church. However, what I don’t understand is why what we believe about the name of the place where God lives, or other theological points makes us unworthy of being “embraced” as charles said, or unqualified to be president. The racism thing is a justifiable concern; however, any form of racism was officially repudiated as a church policy by Spencer Kimball, as mentioned above. (By the way, PhX8, we never thought that black people didn’t have souls, or any form of partial soul). Furthermore, Mormons were always anti-slavery. It’s far from perfect, but how many American religions have even that good of a record on race relations?


BTW - what about Harry Reid. You didn’t hear any of us resorting to religious bigotry. Maybe you can go to the Republican tolerance school.
That’s funny, considering that Harry Reid is a democrat. I guess his constituents, and the people who voted for him as minority/majority leader, (probably mostly democrats), must have already attended the republican tolerance school, huh? If Romney was a democrat, his religion would be much less of an issue.

Posted by: Brian Poole at January 21, 2007 10:30 PM
Comment #204350

The topic is Mitt Romney and his religion. It is not my fault if mormonism is a transparently fraudulent, goofy, and occasionally hilarious religion. It is not my fault for noticing Joseph Smith spent six years in his early life as a scryer, taking money from farmers to search for treasure on their properties using magical pebbles, not finding anything for those six years, then being convicted for fraud by the state of New York. (Desperate, and wanting to marry a sweet young thing, he miraculously found treasure anyway; he found golden plates, and wrote the Book of Mormon, enabling him to marry his first wife- the then the plates disappeared). I mean, come on, Jack, just how gullible can people be? Are you really comfortable with a religion whose founding prophet nailed 14 year old girls? Ah, how can it be wrong when it feels so good!

As others have noted earlier, other sects and religions also have their own silly/disturbing/sick sides.

People are perfectly entitled to believe whatever they want. I object when people impose their beliefs upon me. It especially becomes an issue when there is a potential for that religious belief to impact the nation as a whole through the presidency. Separation of church and state is arguably the best idea we have ever developed. I am not too concerned about Romney imposing his beliefs upon others. But I would like for him to make that clear, and renounce the sicker aspects of Mormon belief.

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #204352


I think you are supporting my contention. If Romney was a Dem, our tolerant PC buddies would have no trouble. It is thus a little extra offensive that they jump on the bigotry bandwagon for strictly political purposes.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #204353


By your lights we certainly could not trust Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. Or you could trust them ONLY if they didn’t really believe in their religion. You have summed up the secular view very well. And you wonder why people of faith are a little leery of liberals.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #204355

Not many hucksters go to their graves for their scams. What sick practices of Mormonism, today, should Romney renounce to be qualified, in your view, for the presidency?

The proof is in the voting. Do you think a Mormon would be elected governer of a red state (obviously excepting Utah and other states with high mormon proportions)? Romney was elected governer of ultra-liberal MA. The religious problem for Romney will be most difficult in the Republican primary.

Posted by: Brian Poole at January 21, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #204357

I stand corrected. The mainstream LDS believes blacks have souls. It is a small offshoot of the LDS which believes otherwise, and they do not represent most practicioners. As you noted, the history of rasism is documented.

Bigotry? I say again, people can believe whatever they want. Some people do not “believe” in Global Warming. Others do not “believe” in evolution. But when their beliefs enter the public realm, then it is fair game to ask if those beliefs will impact you & me.

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #204359


You are not asking him what he believes. You are employing a stereotype based on your caricature of his religion. You can do that with anybody and all religions have basic sources that can be difficult to interpret and easily criticized.

Of course, that is true of any belief system, ethnic group or lifestyle choice.

Posted by: Jack at January 21, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #204360

“Sick” was over the top, and I apologize.

“By your lights we certainly could not trust Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. Or you could trust them ONLY if they didn’t really believe in their religion.”

I think that is a great point. Unfortunately, I am being bumped from the computer, so I may not be able to respond to anything else tonight. But it is a point worth pondering…

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2007 11:18 PM
Comment #204362

Dr. Poshek

Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii. His father had the same name and was Sr. His mother was Stanley Ann Dunham. His father was Muslim. His mother was an athiest. Barack attended a Jakarta, Indonesia school which was Wahabbi. His step-father was Lolo Soetoro and had great influence in Barack’s education. When he became interested in public office he joined the United Church of Christ. This was for political ambitions. Muslims do not let you leave the faith. They will hunt you down and kill you.

Posted by: tomh at January 21, 2007 11:35 PM
Comment #204363

Jack: There are a billion members of one faith that are very leery of conservatives. Should you be branded a biggot because of what many Right wingers have said about Muslems? If i’m not mistaken, even you have joined in on a couple of verses yourself. There are very few people on this planet who don’t on occasion slander or make fun of the religious, political, etc. beliefs of others that we don’t agree with.

Posted by: jlw at January 21, 2007 11:47 PM
Comment #204365

I really don’t know much about Romney, but I’ve heard he is somewhat moderate to liberal. Maybe I am wrong, but will be listening closely. I think, however, that the Republican Party may pull a surprise mid-summer or fall, and someone more conservative will jump into the fray. I know Newt Gingrich is considering, though I doubt Newt’s chances considering how he was villified by the Clinton War Machine. I’d love to see J.C Watts come back or John Kasich. Either one of those guys would be great for the country. But, could they win?


Posted by: JD at January 22, 2007 12:09 AM
Comment #204366
bigotry is not gone.

Come on Jack, according to you, as posted in many of your blogs, prejudices do not exist. At least not to the extent liberals always seem to proclaim. The free market system will solve all; at least you are always proclaiming this.

It is no wonder you think Romney won’t have any problems once he gets to the general elections. According to one of the articles you based your blog on. The Republican Party is composed of the largest block of voters that would have a problem with Romney’s beliefs. Of course, the article also refers to a graph that says that most Democratic candidates would be preferable to the voters than Romney. But details, they can get in the way of a good point.

Posted by: Cube at January 22, 2007 12:34 AM
Comment #204367

Back. By the way, the Republican Senator from Oregon, Gordon Smith, is a Mormon. His chances of winning re-electin in 08 are extremely slim, not because of his religion, but because of his kneejerk backing for Bush over the past six years. Recently he jumped the reservation, calling what has happened in Iraq “criminal,” but it will not be enough to save his bacon next go around.

When Kennedy ran, his Catholic background was an issue, yet he won. Jimmy Carter also made his deep faith clear for all to see; it made some people nervous, but he too won. In both the cases of Kennedy & Carter, their religious beliefs did not impinge upon their conduct in office.

Bush arguably took this even further, the involvement of his personal faith in public policy decisions. We will probably never really know to what extent it affected his presidency.

I have to admit, I am very leary of a “true believer” in the Oval Office. Most religions have strange, ludicrous, even potentially dangerous ideas in their theologies. Assessing the degree to which this might influence a president in decision making is subjective, intuitive.

Hopefully, Romney will have a fair chance to make his case to the GOP. If people sense his moral ground makes him an acceptable candidate, well, more power to him.

But there is still the whole question of what degree of true belief will Americans find acceptable. Religious people who act upon the courage of the convictions have the potential to be… well… scary. To paraphrase an old saying, there is nothing wrong with talking & praying to God. There is cause for concern when God talks to you- especially if “you” happens to be the President of the United States.

Posted by: phx8 at January 22, 2007 1:32 AM
Comment #204377

It’s funny that all the odd stuff in any religion is supposed to be taken seriously, without any question, but when it’s Mormons, it’s somehow different. So much for tolerance.

Knowing many Mormons, they are the most sincere, loving, and hard working people you will meet. It’s sad that the people with the strongest morals and ethics (That actually live them), are ridiculed because people don’t agree with some of their beliefs. They are on your side, not the enemy.

Posted by: Jason at January 22, 2007 9:10 AM
Comment #204378


If I say some of those things you mention about Muslims, you can brand me a bigot. You can legitimately analyze a belief system and show where it is good and bad. In fact, I think we are not judgmental enough when it comes to some dumb idea. You legitimately criticize an individual for the beliefs he/she espouses. This is not only your right, but your duty in many cases. You can use broad trends for marketing and societal research. You might assume that pork sausage would not sell very well in Saudi Arabia, for example. You might rightly assume that in the aggregate some ethnic/religious groups is more dangerous, harder working, more superstitious etc. But in all cases, you must judge based on behaviors. Behavior is certainly influence by belief, but it really is none of your business what people believe, only what they do.

What have Mormons DONE that you find so objectionable? I have been to Utah. It is clean, safe and prosperous. When I travel, I generally stay in Marriott Hotels. They are clean, reasonably priced and well managed. If you look in the drawer, you find the Book of Mormon next to Gideon Bible. Maybe that offends you. Not me.

In the case of an individual who you CAN investigate and know as an individual, nobody has ANY business judging by the group. You can judge the man; you need not resort to the more general criteria. Mitt Romney is a member of a legitimate American group, whose members to the extent they differ from average Americans commit less crime, are more prosperous and among the most generous in terms of per capita charity. Why do you have a problem with this?


My argument is more subtle. I often in fact phrase it as no net discrimination. There are lots of individuals who are prejudiced in various ways. As a white male, I have been denied job opportunities and treated as a stereotype on several occasions. Everybody has a story like that. It does not make our whole society bad. When we see a particular case of it, we should object, however.

The Romney case is so transparent as to be astonishing. People are writing scurrilous things about a particular religion and when somebody complains they just claim they are right. Try that with any recognized oppressed group and see how far you get.


This is the problem of secularism as a religion. Secularists accept people of faith as long as their religion does not influence their beliefs. How can this be? Religious faith deeply influenced most of the important people in U.S. history. I agree that a person should not govern from religion, but I am more worried about the atheist putting his beliefs into practice than a believer in most religions.

Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2007 9:12 AM
Comment #204387


I think all of the widespread religions are pretty much equally goofy, especially when you go back in time. As an agnostic-leaning Jew, I would hate for anyone to assume that what is written in the Old Testament is true about Jews. We would all look like a bunch of bloodthirsty polygamists who follow arcane commandments. (I don’t mean the famous Ten, but the ones about wearing blended fabrics, etc.) Anyone who really lived according to the Old Testament laws would be regarded as a dangerous lunatic.

The only thing really distinctive about Mormonism is that it is so new, so the embarrassing stuff is recent.

I tend to believe that “A religion is a cult with political power”, even my own.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 22, 2007 11:01 AM
Comment #204396

Agreed. The topic is Mitt Romney and his religion, and some people really dislike seeing his religion publicly discussed. Of course, Christianity and Islam also come under some pretty harsh scrutiny on Watchblog, and when that topic comes up, I am sure we will see all sorts of things written.

Like you said, the Mormon religion is unique in its recent development. No other major religion faces so many contradictions from recent historical documents- but that hardly makes other religions more credible. For example, the resurrection of Christ is based on the eyewitness testimony of three people, recorded 40 years later. If today, in 2007, I wrote a book insisting three guys saw someone rise from the dead in 1967, most people would not consider my divine inspiration very credible.

But most religions depend upon “miracle, mystery, and authority.” Without those three, most tribal religions fall flat on their face.

It is always hard to know whether a presidential candidate like Romney really believes in Nephites, Lamanites, the planet Kolob, or approves of a polygamous prophet whose wives included a 14 year old. It would be kind of fun to find out.

Do you consider tithing to be charity? Just curious. Do the tithes go to any charitable organization, regardless of religious affiliation, or do tithes go to the church?

Posted by: phx8 at January 22, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #204403


Just an incidental point, but I don’t think it was unusual in those days for a 14 year old girl to get married. You have to take these things in context. Life expectancies were short and people started breeding early.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 22, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #204408


From my understanding, Tithing does towards a lot of things. Missionary work, contructing temples, distribution to the wards (Those are the meeting houses), aid to foreign lands, the church’s own welfare department to help their lesser fortunate members, maintenance, etc. They also have a food money donation as well. There is something called a fast and testimony meeting once a month where members give more than their normal amount of tithe offerings to go to the hungry.

From what I’ve seen, the humanitarian efforts in other countries is a very large chucnk.

So, Yeah, I guess you can call it charity, since it doesn’t all go back into church related things. Mormons are very good with handling their money and their resources. My friend told me that they are encouraged to stay out of debt as much as they possibly can, to keep 1 years worth of food storage for hard times and to help neighbors and friends.

They really are nice, loving, and thoughtful people. More than anyone else I ever met. They respect my religious beliefs, but I can’t say people do that to them. It’s very hypocritical to claim tolerance and to claim to be Christian and follow Jesus’ teachings if you are bashing other Christians, no matter what sect. They follow the bible and Christ’s teachings as much as I do, if not more (guilty as charged for slacking).

If you can’t agree with their faith, so be it. Don’t be a prick about it. It’s uncalled for. They are good, smart people that I am glad to have known.

Posted by: Jason at January 22, 2007 1:39 PM
Comment #204421

I will vote for Romney only if I can wear my special underwear while I do it.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 22, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #204423

There is something to the idea that Mormonism is being singled out for particular scorn because it is the “latest and the greatest”, its formation coming less than two hundred years ago. I try to ridicule religion on an even-handed basis, I really do;
whether its the christians for their promotion of the idea that it took the blood of christ to redeem the original sin of man (trivia question, can any christian (with out looking it up) tell me what the original sin was?)
Or the muslims for shaving all their body hair so they could be pure for the 72 virgins they would obtain in heaven (this, after plowing airplanes into buildings.
Or, say, the southern baptists, for splitting with the baptists because they insisted that they should be able to enslave black people ( you know, states rights).
so, i would hope that I have not been unfair, in regards to religion there is an endless amount of ridicule to go around!!

Posted by: charles Ross at January 22, 2007 3:15 PM
Comment #204426

Charles Ross
It depends on which clock you want to play with.
Either one of these will qualify.
Adam and Eve and the fruit affair, or
When Lucifer thought he was the most high God and ended up getting kicked out of God’s presence along with 1/3 of the angels.

Posted by: tomh at January 22, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #204427

charles Ross

All religions seem to have their “fairy tale” parts, I suppose to appeal to the less reflective among us. Many of them have valuable moral reasoning behind their tenets, but the magical thinking turns me off, personally. I guess if one can treat the fantasy parts as metaphorical, including the idea of a disembodied omniscient, omnipotent creature running everything, one can be a believer and a thinker as well. However, I think the future evolution of religious thinking will be away from the supernatural ghosts as guide and toward the relevant moral reasoning that actually keeps civilization together. Note it is religious zealotry that has led to the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, not an careful moral reasoning.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 22, 2007 4:14 PM
Comment #204435

Interesting. Mitt Romney used to be a bishop for the LDS.

Posted by: phx8 at January 22, 2007 4:52 PM
Comment #204448

Tomh, my understanding of the “fruit affair” is that Adam and Eve were created by god and lived in the garden of eden. They were invited to all that was in the garden except the one tree. They were forbidden to eat the fruit of this tree. Lucifer comes along to eve, in the form of a snake, and tells eve that god does not want her to eat from this tree because it is the tree of knowledge and if she ate the fruit she would know what god knows. Snake invites, she eats, she offers, adam eats, no more garden. this, as my 8 years at st john’s elementary has taught me, is the core basis for the creation and existence of the catholic church. Man, from that point forward, carried the stain of this original sin, a sin that only the blood of christ could remove.
I find this story so interesting because it all occurred (according to legend) so long ago and yet the implications of it all filters down to the debates going on right now in american society; the hatred of higher education by conservatives is a good example. The mistrust by same of those that are considered the “elite” (read: educated). the mistrust of science (the’re only theories, don’t you know). Conservatives opposition to abortion and family planning is, in part, rooted in this mistrust; that, birth control, for instance is somehow unnatural and antithetical to god; or stem cell research as another example. Look at the themes that are repeatedly stressed by conservatives: faith, family, home, the “heartland” (where exactly is the heartland, are there geographical boundaries?), simplicity,
I don’t know where, exactly, I’m going with this or what exactly the point is so I’ll stop rambling, but I do find it all very interesting.

Posted by: charles Ross at January 22, 2007 6:16 PM
Comment #204450


When we say elite, that is the word we mean. I am better educated than most liberals and many of my conservative friends are even better off than I am. Clearly, conservatives, as in Heritage, AEI etc, can more than hold their own in an intellectual debate and I myself regularly trounce liberals right here.

The people we object to are those who want to tell us what to do, those people who have a idea that they can create a utopia on earth with some master plan (read fascism, communism etc). Our experience has shown that such thinking just gets lots of people killed.

Education is also an interesting thing when you try to define it. Who would you rather have as a business partner, a guy with an MBA or someone with a PhD is gender studies? Some people keep on getting more degrees because they fear venturing out into the world. They are better educated, but may not have learned as much. There is also a lot of intelligence required in various crafts. I had a conversation with the guy who fixed my furnace the other day. My advanced degrees gave me a better vocabulary, but I think he was smarter.

Liberals are currently for stem cells because they know Bush is against it, but they do not always stand on the side of science. Who is it that crippled nuclear power? How many of your liberal friends believe is the wildly unscientific precautionary principle? Do all your liberal friends support biotechnology? Economic change is always welcomed by liberals?

BTW - Science is only theories. It is a process to find truth, not truth itself. I was listening to NPR today where they talked about the immense damage the theories of Freud did to a whole generation of people with various organic illnesses and their families. You would have been better off taking advice from the farmer down the road than from the Freudian at the clinic. Maybe that is anti-intellectual, but it is correct.

Faith, family and home are good things. If you just want to be objective, people who have a good family, are faith in something beyond themselves and interest in home tend to be healthier, wealthier and wiser than those who do not.

Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2007 6:34 PM
Comment #204455

You replied with generalities. And they are your opinion. So be all that. The dislike that conservatives have with higher education is that the liberals are always preaching for and even playing field, diversity, and so on. Liberal profs at most institutions of highter education would feel repugnace at teaching the other viewpoint. So the student is not getting a balanced education.

It is always the “learned” people who are pushing the envelope. Have we become so wise and intelligent that we now have killed 50 million babies in this country? And we call that a rational view from a sane civilization? If you would only stop to consider that today the population is 300 million instead of 350 million in this country. Economically that is a big plus!
How many potential firemen, policemen, teachers, CEO’s, farmers, assembly line workers, ditch diggers, the list is endless, did we kill? A few million voters were killed. All of this because of some perceived “right”. The right in question certainly was not the baby’s rights.

You did not distinguish between stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. Stem cell research is opposed by nobody, whereas embryonic stem cell research is opposed by those who take a different view of life and death.

Since faith, family and home are some of the basic threads of society and have been through all of the history of mankind, I don’t see why you should upset you about that. That might be the part you did’t know where you were going with.

Posted by: tomh at January 22, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #204457

I live in Massachusetts, he’s flipping around to position himself not as a liberal but a conservative. I’m not impressed. Vote him into office and I suspect he will rediscover he is a liberal.

I’d rather vote for someone who stands for something he doesn’t have to flip flop on to win an election.

Posted by: Stephen at January 22, 2007 7:20 PM
Comment #204461

to tell you the truth, I don’t find the arguments made by the heritage foundation or the american enterprise institute to be terribly persuasive at all. Members of both are careful (not always, but often enough) to appear in friendly forums in which there is scarce stand-up opposition to what they are promoting. It is a bit like the bush-cheney crowd who, when they want to “introduce a new product”, are notorious for hiding out either on military bases or carefully screened audiences calling out pre-screened questions. When was the last time you saw an aei going up against lou dobbs to argue the merits of filling this country full of poor illegals? They may have been on his show but i certainly don’t remember it.
your very comment about ‘nobody should tell us what to do’ is illustrative of what i’m saying. It’s a simplistic phrase that has little meaning in the real world. Everybody is told what to do on a regular basis.
Sorry Jack, that’s the fact.
When, for example, government tells people how they must drive their cars and that they must show proof (a license) to do so, we move a bit closer to that utopia you seem to disdain.
regarding who i would like to have as a business partner. Well, I drive a bread truck so the essential thing is that they don’t squish the bread when they handle it!
re: stem cell research. I am for it because there is no rational reason to be against it. If you are against stem cell research because it destroys embryos then by definition you are against in vitro fertilization. are you?
Re: “science is only theories” I’m amazed that you would say that. there is no fact in good RESEARCH science. No reputable scientist would declare evolution, for instance, to be a fact. The highest rung that can be achieved is that of being a theory. You are mixing up (deliberately, i think) the common notion of theory (contemplation, speculation, guess or conjecture) with the scientific one (a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena). Two different meanings to the same word. With regard to psychiatry, I don’t believe the practice has any theories. Theories, using the scientific method, must be testable and I don’t think that is possible. It would be more accurate to say that psychiatry has “doctrines’.
“faith, family, home” are good things. They make great slogans to get out the vote every two years. The republicans use these words to define who they are and others aren’t.

Posted by: charles Ross at January 22, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #204463

Jeez, tomh, you refer to the “fruit affair” and I give, what I consider to be, a pretty complete account of the story of the garden of eden (I’m very proud of myself that I remember that much!!) and you accuse me of “generalities”?
I don’t know, tomh, i just don’t know.

Posted by: charles Ross at January 22, 2007 7:54 PM
Comment #204483


It is the presumption of some self appointed elites that they have the right to tell others what to do for their own good, and the presumption of most liberals that they are better educated, more widely traveled and morally superior is just silly.

You may not find the arguments they make particularly persuasive. As I highly educated and well traveled guy, I do. We just disagree about the conclusions and maybe the premises, but if you do not find the argument persuasive, maybe you do not understand them because these groups have an undeniable intellectual firepower.

Their audiences are by no means prescreened. The programs are advertised widely and almost always free to anybody who walks in. You just are unfamiliar with their methods.

Re illegals, I have never heard them advocate filling this country with illegals. I do not know why they would go up against someone who agreed with them. Lou Dobbs, BTW, is an interesting guy, but his populist arguments are analogous to those of Bill O’Reilly. You do not think of him as intellectual, do you?

You misunderstood my contention about science. Science is based on theory. Any decent scientist will tell you that they have not reached THE truth. Science requires constant correction. Science in the sense of the method is never wrong. Science in the sense of conclusions often is. It is possible to have too much faith in the conclusions of what passes for science. That is what happened with Freud. Now we know he was just peddling a type of protean gnosticism. Back a generation ago, he was considered one of the top scientists of the century.

As for our original subject - Mormons - because of the unique nature of their faith, they are among the most widely traveled people in the world. Because of the language skills many Mormons acquire, they are well represented in our Foreign Service and international business. I bet your preconceived notion of them did not allow for that.

Posted by: jack at January 22, 2007 9:07 PM
Comment #204487


I did express a bit of amuzment at some beliefs held by some religions. I suspect that you probably have also. I did not ridicule. I also later said that religion should not be enough to judge Romny. I do repect your opinion even though I often disagree. Please save your scorn for when I deserve it.


See the CNN report. Obama did go to a Muslum school in indonesia. It was not a fundementalist school. It is co-ed. The teachers wear western clothing. They have Christian, Buddist,and even Confusion students as well as Muslums.He also attended a Catolic school while his family lived there.

Posted by: BillS at January 22, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #204494

tomh: Your defense of libel with more libel does not change the libelous nature of your smear. Lying does not illuminate discussion or debate. Lying does illuminate the character of the liar. Repeating a lie after you have been called on it is… well, simply shameful and decidely not very Christian.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at January 22, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #204498


Sorry if I scorned you unjustly. I was a little surprised at the tone of the some of the posts. I am sorry if I grouped them with you unfairly.

Actually, I do not think I was scorning that much anyway, but sorry if it seemed that way.

There are not many people I scorn on purpose. You are not among them. Sorry.

Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2007 9:58 PM
Comment #204510

Jack: In your defense, you are, at the least, a very worthy scorner. Absit invidia verbo.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at January 22, 2007 11:14 PM
Comment #204516


With all those schools, (probably all private), in Obama’s past, he surely must be for school vouchers, so that middle class folks can have the best for their kids like his well-to-do parents had for theirs. Hmm?


Posted by: JD at January 22, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment #204517

Dr. Poshek

Where did I libel anybody? The facts are that Mr. Obama was reared as a Muslim. In Mark Steyn’s column today he likewise referred to Mr. Obama as a Muslim. If you cannot accept that fact, that is your problem. But when you call me a liar and accuse me of libel over something you have trouble accepting, you have crossed the line. It appears that Sen. Clinton may have known it. The internet has many bios on Mr. Obama. Some of them include the Muslim reference and some of them don’t. I think you owe me an appology but I don’t expect to see or hear it.

Posted by: tomh at January 22, 2007 11:33 PM
Comment #204520

Dr. P

I rarely have ill will in my words and I try never to insult anybody - accidentally.

Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2007 11:45 PM
Comment #204537

tomh: You are owed no apology. That you are basing your libel on something Mark Steyn wrote says it all. Steyn has never found a fact he liked… especially when he can smear another person despite the facts. You might have followed BillS cite above and found the facts. That you did not suggests that you believe that telling a lie enough times will make the lie true. Well, it does not.

The question is: As overt racism towards African Americans is no longer acceptable in our society except in the Old South and in a not insignificant part of the GOP, why you feel it necessary to turn to a proxy instead of being honest about your feelings towards an African American candidate for president? Are you so cowardly that you must lie about Senator Obama rather than admit the real reason for your dislike for him?

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at January 23, 2007 12:28 AM
Comment #204577

Dr. Poshek
I did not rely on Bills nor Mark Steyn for the data. There are a number of sites that state he was raised a Muslim. That is not a lie. You must quit distorting truth and falsehood.

Now, when you can come to grips with the truth, I will further respond. Until then the truth stands and I will no longer converse with you on this matter.

BTW-Your claim of overt racism towards African Americans is false. Continue your rant somewhere else.

Posted by: tomh at January 23, 2007 8:08 AM
Comment #204609


see here

This is the same type of race-/religio-centric “push poll” crap that killed McCains campaign in ‘00. When will people ever learn?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 23, 2007 1:28 PM
Comment #204627


The spit and shine coming from CNN is fluff.

The truth still stands Barack Hussein Obama was raised a Muslim.

From “Audacity of Hope” by Obama he says:
His father was absent from his life, leaving his mother when Barack was only 2 years old in 1963. His new father Lolo Soetoro was also a Muslim. The family was living in Indosesia. At the age of 6 he was enrolled into school. His education consisted mostly Muslim and a 2 year stint in a catholic school.

You guys have all read this while googling for anything to discredit this information. The data is truthful. The spin is shaky at best.

Posted by: tomh at January 23, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #204629

BTW I do not read Insight, which published this info. I do read Mark Steyn who had this info in his column today. I know of it before his column of today. I don’t depend on CNN for anything. I once heard that CNN stood for Clearly No News. I cannot verify that, though, because I don’t watch CNN.

Posted by: tomh at January 23, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #204635

tomh: May God have mercy on your soul—you are going to need it. Senator Obama’s step father and mother were together for a total 4.75 years of which Senator Obama spent 2 years in a Catholic school. The senator’s step father was only nominally Muslim (otherwise, he would have had no career in the Indonesian military which rightly did and does not look kindly upon fundamentalist religionists). Of course, that is no better in your eyes. Nothing worse than a Catholic to Christain fundamentalists like yourself and Islamic fundamentalists (no difference between the two: desperate, uneducated people denying the reality of modernity; Pat Robertson vs Osama bin Laden — no difference, just 2 angry, hate-filled nuts wishing people dead).

That you read Mark Steyn, a racist, high school drop out who is incapable of dealing with reality, again, says everything one needs to know about your delusional weltenschang. We can only hope that you are not permitted contact with children.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at January 23, 2007 4:32 PM
Comment #204648

Dr. Poshek
I said I would not respond until you could approach the discussion with your own brand of hate.

Sorry, your late. I have 3 children from my first wife, 1 stepchild from my second wife and 2 foster-adoption childre. Eight grandchildren and 4 great-grandchildred. I love them all.

Posted by: tomh at January 23, 2007 5:21 PM
Comment #204664

To all: I think Romney would be an excellent President, if one’s goals are to reduce the deficit and strengthen the economy. I don’t understand why some people are taking private matters of his (his religion) and bringing it to the front. I’ve lived under his four year stint as governor and I can tell you that I am very satisfied by the work he did to reverse the budget here and to help our economy. I didn’t like his attempt to derail our decision to bring marriage equality to our state, but no candidate is ever perfect. Although I am more impressed by several of the Democratic Candidates, if Mitt Romney wins the nomination I’ll be hard pressed to vote against him in my first election (I turn 18 next year!). In regards to social issues, Romney’s position, to the best of my memory (which does not include his attempt to oust Ted Kennedy in ‘94 because I was only 5 years old at the time), he has consistently said that he believes abortion, gay marriage etc to be wrong, but respected the fact that a majority of Bay Staters think differently and he promised not to interfere (He reneged on this promise by deciding to use an archaic law from 1913 originally used to prevent interracial marriage to limit same-sex marriage and by trying to push through the legislature and state senate a Constitutional Amendment restoring discrimination in marriage when a majority clearly did not want such an amendment.

Posted by: Warren P at January 23, 2007 6:19 PM
Comment #204865

What happened to the rules? Is this kind of stuff really permitted now? “We can only hope that you are not permitted contact with children. “

Posted by: Rob at January 24, 2007 7:36 PM
Post a comment