Mitt Romney Updates

[ldsrebel]

Mitt's favorite music ~

Roy Orbison, The Beatles, The Eagles, The Kingston Trio, Alan Jackson, Toby Keith, Brooks & Dunn, George Strait, Clint Black, and Garth Brooks

favorite books ~

Huckleberry Finn – Mark Twain

What It Takes – Richard Ben Cramer

Theodore Rex – Edmund Morris

The World Is Flat – Thomas Friedman

1776 – David McCullough

The Battle For Peace –Tony Zinni and Tony Koltz

The Business Of Winning – Robert Evangelista

http://www.myspace.com/mittromney

Mitt and Ann

He's got good taste in music...

[JcDean78]

He is about to move into 2nd place officially because McCain is doing all he can in his power to make sure he does not get the nod.

However I doubt it will last long, Fred is going to be fighting for that top spot soon. Once he gets rolling then it will be between Fred and Rudy. Perhaps Mitt can go VP... which has been his goal all along IMO.

[Guest mamacat]

cute ~ How many "first ladies" will Mitt bring to the White House? Romney's been married to the same woman for 38 years - while Rudy Giuliani walked down the aisle three times, John McCain twice, and Newt Gingrich three times. As Kate O'Beirne recently noted, the only GOP frontrunner with one wife is the Mormon.

Mitt Romney Not Our Pastor-in-Chief

Nancy French

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

There's a question I'm often asked by my closest friends and casual acquaintances alike: "How could a committed Christian like you support a Mormon for president?"

I get that question a lot as co-founder of the Evangelicals for Mitt organization - especially now that Rev. Al Sharpton has apparently taken it upon himself to question the validity of Mitt Romney's faith.

In fact, the news that I'm supporting Romney for president recently brought one of my Christian friends to tears - she couldn't understand it.

The mainstream media often seems as incredulous as my friend. They maintain that Romney has no chance in the Bible Belt, due to the differences between the Mormon faith and mainstream Christianity. But my emotional friend's reaction notwithstanding, the media have it wrong.

Let me explain why. To paraphrase Jerry Falwell, I wouldn't want Gov. Romney as my Sunday school teacher, but that's not the office he's running for. The fact is, we're not electing a Pastor-in-Chief. Voters who care about traditional values are smart enough to keep that in mind.

In countless conversations with Southern evangelicals, here are the questions asked most frequently:

Can Evangelicals and Mormons really work together and trust each other?

The fact is that in spite of our theological differences, Christians and Mormons are already political allies. In fact, if Mormons weren't consistently more conservative than their evangelical neighbors, Al Gore would be America's president now - instead of his newfound role as the earth's "weather psychic."

Does believing "Mormon stuff" make Romney gullible?

All religions require a leap of faith that appears silly to outsiders. If a reporter questioned me about my religion, he'd raise an eyebrow over my belief that Noah was a floating zookeeper, that Jesus was the best sommelier in Galilee, and that he paid taxes with coins from a fish's mouth.

No one belongs to the Church of the Scientific Method, so religion falls outside normal reasoning. Gov. Romney's beliefs certainly require faith - including his quite miraculous notion that Jesus is his personal Savior. In my experience, evangelicals loathe religious litmus tests, ever since Democrats tried to disqualify Christian and Catholic judges because of their beliefs. And as far as gullible goes, well, don't forget: Mitt Romney has two Harvard degrees.

Is America ready for a Mormon president?

If someone asked me whether I'd support a "former alcoholic," a "divorced Hollywood actor," or a "Southern Baptist," I'd pick the "Baptist" every time. However, when actual names are associated with the traits, I'd pick the former alcoholic (George W. Bush) or actor (Ronald Reagan) over the Baptist (Bill Clinton) faster than you can say "Lewinsky."

The point is, individual personalities matter. As America learns more about Gov. Romney, his political triumphs will overshadow his religion. For example, after brazen judges legalized homosexual "marriage," he stopped Massachusetts from becoming "gay Las Vegas" by refusing to marry out-of-state gay couples.

He also erased a $3 billion dollar debt without raising taxes, and has forcefully advocated pro-life positions. In other words, the question isn't whether we're ready for a Mormon, but are we ready for this Mormon.

What about Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee?

John Mark Reynolds wrote that "my faith in the holiness standards of Baptists survived Clinton and my belief in their sanity survived Carter, though that was a closer call." But Gov. Huckabee doesn't deserve to be tainted by the dubious political legacy of recent Baptist leaders - i.e. Clinton's moral failure, Carter's weak foreign policy, Johnson's social programs, and Gore's use of the word "lock box." Evangelicals evaluate candidates on their political merits and don't vote for the "most Christian" person on the ballot. (Note the Oval Office absence of Alan Keyes.)

Doesn't theology matter?

Of course it matters! If a candidate belonged to the "Church of Killing Canadians," to use an absurd illustration, voters would rightly ask whether he planned on invading Canada and stealing their moose. Some theologies do lead to flawed political decisions. But Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity have common moral and, therefore, political values.

In fact, the only difference between a Mormon and a Presbyterian at a cocktail party is the Mormon isn't getting a chardonnay refill. Perhaps someone less scandalous than Ward Cleaver is just what a Mark Foley/Ted Haggard fatigued nation needs.

How many "first ladies" will Mitt bring to the White House?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints gave up polygamy in 1890. In fact, the polygamists and their bun-wearing wives on Dateline are as realistic a portrayal of Mormons as mountain-dwelling snake handlers are of evangelicalism. Romney's been married to the same woman for 38 years - while Rudy Giuliani walked down the aisle three times, John McCain twice, and Newt Gingrich three times. As Kate O'Beirne recently noted, the only GOP frontrunner with one wife is the Mormon.

Are you really a Christian?

Please: I've eaten countless unidentifiable casseroles at potlucks and I've sung "Just As I Am" 73 million times. I just so happen to support Mitt Romney for President - in spite of our theological differences. I happen to think it's more "Christian" to give the man a fair shake, than to pave the way for candidates without a commitment to social issues.

I'm apparently not alone - donors in Tennessee gave more money to Romney than any other candidate. Plus, he beat all current GOP candidates in straw polls in Memphis, Washington, D.C., and even Greenville, S.C. He's also garnered endorsements by prominent evangelicals like Jay Sekulow, Mark DeMoss, and Hugh Hewitt.

Most importantly, though, the mere mention of his name makes the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the mainstream media break out into hives. That, of course, is enough to make any evangelical put aside theological differences, and take notice.

Nancy French is co-founder of www.EvangelicalsforMitt.org and the author of "Red State of Mind: How a Catfish Queen Reject Became a Liberty Belle"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...5724.shtml?s=po

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't get the media buzz about Fred Thompson.

What's he done that's so spectacular?

Nothing more or less than any other candidate.

What's going on is simply this: The media is desperate for a democract in the Oval Office. So they're choosing to "back" a republican (Fred) that would not stand as good a chance against Hillary as, say, Romney or Giulianni.

I don't get the hype about Fred, and I don't think voters will either. It's just the media again, trying to pull of Matrix-type effects with all the stunt-wires showing. Keanu Reeves (sp?) cannot do a flying kick over six feet high and over a distance of ten yards. Fred Thompson cannot defeat Hillary.

Nice try, silly media moguls.

[JcDean78]

Actually its the GOP base thats excited about Fred, not the MSM. The MSM pick is and has always been McCain because he is a liberal on everything but the war with absolutly no respect for our founding principles and the rule of law.

Fred is saying all the right things, he has a rather solid conservative record, he energizes the party base (being honest none of the others do), he is a uniter and not a divider for the party. The current main 3 each have something that divides the party. McCain is his total lack of respect for our country and the rule of law. Rudy is abortion, and Mitt is some of his more liberal leaning legislation and the fact that he is LDS which DOES unfortunatly divide a portion of the GOP base.

Fred is extremly well known and comes off as a tough guy. He is an excellent public speaker and knows how to work a crowd. To appeal and energize the base, Fred is our best hope. He is not my first pick for policy reasons, but he is the best pick for the party. My pick is still Newt, even if he does say he thinks Global Warming is man made.

[Guest mamacat]

fred thompson's appeal arises from the role he played on 'Law and Order.' people like the things he said that were written in a script for a tv show.

he'd make a good mouthpiece....he's got great posturing style.

[Guest mamacat]

Mitt is some of his more liberal leaning legislation and the fact that he is LDS which DOES unfortunatly divide a portion of the GOP base.

the question is religion that is divisive? what religion is fred thompson? as the article above stated, both Clinton and Carter are baptists. is that the decisive factor? if so would those republicans voting on the basis of religion vote for either of them, rather than the political qualifications of a candidate?

[JcDean78]

Mamacat I do not agree with it but many feel that our Religion is far out of the main stream and work full time to discredit us. While the are not in the majority, they do have a lot of people listening to them and others who might be on the fence are not energized. They seem to see us as worse than somebody who is not very religious at all and have a never ending spew of hate though they call themselves "Christians" too.

I am not by any means saying I think Fred is a best person for the job. I am saying that he is the person with the best chance to unite and energize the ENTIRE base and win the whole thing.

[Guest mamacat]

Dr. James Dobson: Fred Thompson 'Not a Christian'

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson has dealt a potentially devastating blow to Fred Thompson’s presidential aspirations, saying the former senator is not a Christian.

"Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson – considered the most politically powerful evangelical figure in the U.S. – said in a phone call to Dan Gilgoff, senior editor at U.S. News & World Report.

"[but] I don’t think he’s a Christian. At least that’s my impression.”

Thompson’s spokesman Mark Corallo took issue with the statement.

"Thompson is indeed a Christian,” he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ.”

Focus on Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger sought to clarify Dobson’s statement, telling Gilgoff that while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson belonged to a non-Christian faith, he "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian – someone who openly talks about his faith.

"We use that word – Christian – to refer to people who are evangelical Christians. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy.”

Thompson has said he is leaving the door open for a presidential run. A Gallup-USA Today poll released on Tuesday has the Tennessee Republican running third behind Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain among Republicans and Republican-leaning voters.

Although Dobson has not endorsed any Republican presidential candidate, he told Gilgoff that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the "brightest guy out there” and "the most articulate politicians on the scene today.”

Gilgoff is the author of the new book "The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America Are Winning the Culture War.”

In the 2004 race, Dobson gave the first public presidential endorsement of his career, supporting George Bush. Bush got almost 6 million new white evangelical votes in 2004 that he didn’t get in 2000.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/...1351.shtml?s=ic

[prisonchaplain]

I don't get the media buzz about Fred Thompson.

What's he done that's so spectacular?

Nice try, silly media moguls.

Thompson is articulate and conservative. So, he can appeal to the Republican base, and, like Reagan, he can communicate a passionate Republican message. Guillioni is also articulate and tough--but he's liberal on social issues. Romney may be conservative, but has some less-than-kosher past positions on issues. For Romney to make he has to shine shine shine.

Mamacat I do not agree with it but many feel that our Religion is far out of the main stream and work full time to discredit us. While the are not in the majority, they do have a lot of people listening to them and others who might be on the fence are not energized. They seem to see us as worse than somebody who is not very religious at all and have a never ending spew of hate though they call themselves "Christians" too.

I am not by any means saying I think Fred is a best person for the job. I am saying that he is the person with the best chance to unite and energize the ENTIRE base and win the whole thing.

There are those who will not vote for Romney because he's LDS. The are others who will not vote for Obama because of his race. Still others, Guillioni, because he's been divorced.

Bottom-line: IF Romney becomes the Republican nominee, those who vote against him for religious reasons, will be empowering Harry Reed.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thompson is articulate and conservative.

You say this based on what?

[Guest Yediyd]

Anybody catch the hoopla excited by Al Sharpton's "interesting" comment about Mitt?

Seems Mitt is being very gracious and giving Sharpton room to back up and take back what he said, but man, if anyone said that about a Jew or a Buddhist instead of a Mormon, the media would be all over it.

Ya think?

Romney says his faith's past is troubling

Calls practice of polygamy 'awful'

Reuters | May 12, 2007

BOSTON -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said his Mormon religious faith's history of polygamy could trouble American voters and that he, too, is bothered by it.

The former Massachusetts governor, whose great-grandfather had five wives and whose great-great-grandfather had a dozen, said in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow that the practice banned by the Mormon church in 1890 was "awful."

"That's part of the history of the church's past that I understand is troubling to people," he said, according to comments to be aired on CBS's "60 Minutes."

"I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert and so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy," he said.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints distances itself from 30,000 to 60,000 breakaway Mormons in Utah and nearby states who practice polygamy illegally, as well as the many excommunicated Mormons in polygamous marriages.

"What's at the heart of my faith is a belief that there's a creator, that we're all children of the same God, and that fundamentally the relationship you have with your spouse is important and eternal," Romney said over the course of two interviews, one of which was taped at his vacation home in Wolfeboro, N.H.

In the interviews, Romney also defended his opposition to gay marriage by citing the Scriptures.

"This isn't just some temporary convenience here on Earth, but we're people that are designed to live together as male and female and we're gonna have families," he told interviewer Mike Wallace, according to an excerpt CBS released yesterday. "And that, there's a great line in the Bible that children are an inheritance of the Lord and happy is he who has or hath his quiver full of them."

Meanwhile, Romney, who made his fortune as a management consultant, is expected to report financial assets of $190 million to $250 million, an adviser said yesterday. Romney's assets have been held in a blind trust that he and his wife set up when he took office in 2002.

The adviser who provided the estimate of his assets cautioned that the number is based on 2005 and 2006 financial activity and could amount to a bigger total once the disclosure report is filed later this year.

The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because the totals have not been officially released. The deadline for filing financial disclosures is Tuesday, but Romney obtained an extension.

Romney also has a blind trust for his children and grandchildren that is estimated to hold assets of $70 million to $100 million.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...t_is_troubling/

This is why I am looking more closely at the other canidates...

He probably meant he can't imagine having to have more than one wife...that it's that which was awful, not that he questioned whether the practice came at the command of God.

Who knows? Only anti-mormons will notice it, voters won't care when the politics take center stage.

I'm not an anti...yet I found that comment by Romney offensive. I also felt it was ignorant, and Romney is NOT an ignorant man...he strikes me as a little too "political" for my taste. But then, so do the others.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

Thompson is articulate and conservative.

You say this based on what?

You deny that he communicates well? I suppose it's subjective, but to be elected to a national political position, and also be able to get work in Hollywoood usually indicates at least a modicum of speaking skill.

As for his conservative credentials, nobody questions him on the social issues. He's solid. The National Taxpayer's Union rated him 3rd highest. Even Cato (libertarian) says Fred has the strongest chance of wearing the "small government mantle."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/05/31/...t-conservative/

[FrankJL]

Fred Thompson isn't a conservative??

huh??

[CrimsonKairos]

My point was that I don't see him as any more conservative or articulate than some of the current presidential candidates. The media is hyping him up when there's nothing to justify such attention. It's a liberal tactic to draw attention away from republican candidates who could actually beat Hillary in the general elections.

[FrankJL]

My point was that I don't see him as any more conservative or articulate than some of the current presidential candidates. The media is hyping him up when there's nothing to justify such attention. It's a liberal tactic to draw attention away from republican candidates who could actually beat Hillary in the general elections.

I still don't understand...

Thompson is by far more conservative then Giuliani, McCain, or Romney.

Since when did being articulate matter? Have you ever watched Bush speak?, yet he won twice.

If polling is to believed, the only one of them that stands any real chance of beating Hillary is Giuliani, all the rest are far behind her.

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

My point was that I don't see him as any more conservative or articulate than some of the current presidential candidates. The media is hyping him up when there's nothing to justify such attention. It's a liberal tactic to draw attention away from republican candidates who could actually beat Hillary in the general elections.

I still don't understand...

Thompson is by far more conservative then Giuliani, McCain, or Romney.

Since when did being articulate matter? Have you ever watched Bush speak?, yet he won twice.

If polling is to believed, the only one of them that stands any real chance of beating Hillary is Giuliani, all the rest are far behind her.

and whats even more interesting is......I just heard today that Obama was a point or twoahead of Hillary now.....I think its almost time for gloves to come off between those two.........I can't wait!!!!!

[Guest mamacat]

<div class='quotemain'>

Thompson is articulate and conservative.

You say this based on what?

hehe...based on his character on law and order.....i've read elsewhere that people are very impressed that he actually has pronounced "nuclear" correctly on several subsequent occasions...

and re: Gingrich.....for those in favor of this man of contracts (when he came up with his contract for america, my parents actually drafted a contract defining my relationship with them ....) is anyone aware of his stance on healthcare? he's worked very cooperatively with Hillary Clinton on healthcare reform most recently...and in his book -- Saving Lives, Saving Money: Transforming Health and Healthcare in the 21st Century -- he does state the need for universal healthcare, and stumps for this initiative as well.

http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/...s-1775642.shtml

[Dr T]

Bush is a horrible speaker and he's our president.

[FrankJL]

I was searching around for some info on newt's specific views on health care, for myself, because I really don't know too many specifics on it.

But on newts site I found this little nugget: "The ipod tax"

http://www.newt.org/multimedia/default.asp?mi=490

Leave it to liberals to tax everything.

Send them nickels...I love it

I don't know about newt as president, but really like the passion and just plain common sense he conveys when he speaks at public events.

[Guest the_big_picture]

Since this is the Mitt Romney thread, I wish to post this. Its from his webbsite.

Iran:

There are few more urgent priorities for our nation than confronting Iran's dangerous nuclear program and support of terrorist groups targeting Americans. Governor Romney has led efforts to stand up to an Iranian regime that threatens America, Israel, and ultimately the world. At the 2007 Herzliya Conference in Israel, Governor Romney laid out a comprehensive, five point strategy for dealing with Iran.

Specifically, we must:

- First, continue to tighten economic sanctions.

- Second, impose diplomatic isolation on Iran's Government.

- Third, have Arab states join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran.

- Fourth, make it clear that while nuclear capabilities may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option remains on the table.

- Fifth, integrate our strategy into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world--including working with our NATO allies and with progressive Muslim communities and leaders to build a partnership for prosperity.

As someone that wants to join the LDS church, I was glad seeing a mormon candidate. Since Mormons are good people doing good deeds.

But as an Iranian, visiting Iran 2 months a year I found this highly disturbing. "have Arab states join in effort to prevent a nuclear Iran".

Somehow It takes me back to the time when the Iranian revolution ended, and the islamists took power and started a new dictatorship. America Put Saddam in power in Iraq so he would Invade Iran now when the entire military command had been executed. America worked with the Arabs to attack Iran.

All arab states sent money and weapons to Iraq, some people even went fighting for Iraq and Saddam.

The best thing America could do, if they are conserned, is to put more pessure on the world. The Iranian regime is still alive cause, Russia, China, Europe, Japan, is trading with Iran.

America and the UN has put sanctions, but no other nation follows it.

If the regime stops getting money, the police, the hezballah, and all the other devils will stop controlling the people. The economy will collapse, it will be chaos, and then a revolution. The state must loose stability.

[CrimsonKairos]

The same thing will happen in Iran as in Iraq.

The U.N. will sanction and sanction and finally the USA (which really is the U.N.) will respond militarily while all the other countries who sat on the sidelines will give the U.S. a red card as it were and cry "foul!"

I'd love to see the other nations that are supposedly part of the U.N. grow some kahoonies and back up what they say. The U.K. has been pretty tough on terrorists, but I don't think they can afford a military conflict in Iran right now (politically or financially).

[Snow]

.

Somehow It takes me back to the time when the Iranian revolution ended, and the islamists took power and started a new dictatorship. America Put Saddam in power in Iraq so he would Invade Iran now when the entire military command had been executed. America worked with the Arabs to attack Iran.

The U.S. did not put Saddam in power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

[Guest the_big_picture]

<div class='quotemain'>

.

Somehow It takes me back to the time when the Iranian revolution ended, and the islamists took power and started a new dictatorship. America Put Saddam in power in Iraq so he would Invade Iran now when the entire military command had been executed. America worked with the Arabs to attack Iran.

The U.S. did not put Saddam in power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Yes they did, It was direct after the islamist took power. He had a political carrier before.

They didnt invade and put him in power they did it by using intelligence, The CIA is very effective.

look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh They did the same thing there but puting someone out of power.

[CrimsonKairos]

Hussein was a small-town bully who became a thug who like Hitler was involved in a botched assassination/coup who spent time in prison who then was released and connived and conned his way into power.

The CIA certainly did not "put Saddam into power." He did that himself. For more info, read: "Saddam's Secrets," by the only Christian Iraqi General to serve under Saddam. This same Christian Iraqi General and his wife knew Saddam and his wife before Hussein's rise to power. Interesting reading to be sure.

Pointing out how the CIA influenced an Iranian politician is not proof that the CIA did the same thing with Hussein.

Could you cite your sources, or tell us where you're getting your information?