Deseret News | Romney's off-air defense of faith gets lots of Internet attention

Reader comments
Romney's off-air defense of faith gets lots of Internet attention

Tyler | 12:33 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007

Michelson is trying to make hay out of this, but frankly I really enjoyed the exchange. I hope, that if I were in Romney's shoes, I'd have said the same exact thing... There's a great line in there that he should use when discussing religion and politics... "with the same vehemence that we follow our beliefs..." That's how Romney the President should be evaluated.

Aragon | 1:12 a.m. Aug. 10, 2007

I watched the exchange on YouTube and I thought Romney handled himself very well. There are still people out there who don't have a clue of what "Separation of Church and State" meant...

Jerry | 2:22 p.m. Aug. 10, 2007

Mitt Romney flip flops so much he cannot remember what he has said at any given time.
He uses his religion when it can help him and downplays it when it might be a problem.
Mickelson was right in his assessment!

Comments continue below

Bellamia | 12:58 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

Romney is the only pro-life front runner in either party that has a chance of winning the presidency. Guiliani and Hillary are both pro-abortion.

Who else is a legitimate pro-life candidate?

Aragon | 1:19 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

I don't think Romney will run this country as a "Mormon President." He will run it as President Romney. That is if he wins the nomination and then the election. That's just my 25 cent opinion...

Clark | 7:25 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

With the continuing effort to separate church and state, a candidate's religious beliefs should carry less and less weight. If Mitt wasn't so miffed at the queries then people would stop asking and his religion would cease to be an issue. The larger problem is the ignorance shown by the many, many LDS folks who will vote for Mitt because he is LDS, regardless of his qualifications or stance on issues. And it's not as if these folks are the only ones who vote based on religion, race, or gender alone. Thank goodness for a representative government.

Aragon | 8:02 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

Well put Clark...

Kev | 8:31 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

I am LDS and will vote for Romney, if given the chance, because of his stance on the issues, not because he is LDS. I think most LDS are intelligent enough to sort that out. I've had lots of discussions with church members and many of them will not vote for him based on the issues. The problem with Romney is that he doesn't want to talk about his religion because he doesn't want the label. Once the media has pinned the tail on the Donkey he'll never be able to shake it. That will kill his campaign, especially in the religious right. So its understandable that he does not want to talk a lot about it. The media has already labeled him a "flip flopper." Imagine if they could call him a "flip flopping Mormon."

3girls | 9:48 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

Well put Kev.... I will vote based on a candidates stance on issues. Doesn't everyone, LDS or not vote because the candidate stands for what they believe and what the candidates vision for America is?

Evelyn | 10:45 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

I am not LDS but have many Mormon friends.
Why would that affect how I vote. Inform me!
I thought I would vote for a President of the U.S.A ,not a Church affiliation.
I fail to see the connection.
How did Kennedy get elected? I wasn't a member of his church and many who elected him were not either.

C. | 11:36 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

How many Presidents have been affiliated with one religion or another? Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, for a few were each associated with different religious backgrounds and beliefs. Believing is one thing, practicing the religion is another. Each had HIS own moral values, views and ideas on life and religion as each of us do. Why does a Mormon who runs for Pres. office have any less right to that same freedom of belief, values, morals etc. If anything I might not hear again another umpteen times about an immoral act in the oval office on the news being denied, that happened.. I am all for that. A leader with Morals that are strong is what this country needs to get back on track again. Sometimes the reign on a horse is given too freely and you lose control. Pull back and the head is held high and dignity and control are regained. One too defends that which he loves. How many other Presidents defended their faith?.. A man with purpose is a man with a conscience. And, a far better leader.

Lynne | 11:37 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

I am LDS, outside the state of Utah, and will vote for Romney on the basis of his ability to express himself well, understands the issues at hand and knows where he stands on them. He showed great leadership during the 2002 Olympics, taking over from leadership in crisis. That, to me, shows grace under fire.

Paul Jack Leonard | 11:47 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

I am LDS I have followed Mitt Romney since the 2002 Olympics and watch what a wonderful job he did. I believe he is well orginized and puts his country 1st. Plus he has raised a great family and to me without America returning to its roots as a family nation we have a very diffuclt road ahead. This nation was foundeded upon Freedmon of Religion by our finding Fathers. We need men who will stand for what they believe not smooth talking politicians. His back ground in business has been outstanding.

Spencer W. Morgan | 11:54 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007

"Defense of Faith"?

That's now how it seemed to me. It seemed to me like Romney was defending HIMSELF circa 1994! Why, if he had a glorious conversion to the pro-Life position, would he be so vehemently defending that ability of a Church member to be pro-choice?

Also, he did really seem to have his head in the sand about the Church's position on abortion. He is correct in stating that the Church has made no pronouncements regarding what POLICIES should be in place regarding abortion, but they leave no ambiguity regarding how we feel about the act of abortion.

Also, the natural question is... does overseeing the executive branch in a State that funds abortions consitute "encouragement" of abortions?

Sue Tappana | 12:48 p.m. Aug. 11, 2007

Hey Mitt!!!

CAAARRRRRRYYYYYY
ON!!!!!!!!!!!!

(ENTER TREBLE CLEF SIGN HERE:)

RoyAnn Gregerson | 1:01 p.m. Aug. 11, 2007

I think Mitt needs to stop trying to defend his religion. He is who he is because of his religion and if someone wants to know more about what he believes they should visit his church's web site and get true facts and answers at lds.org. Mitt's role is to tell you why he will be a great president and leader. He has proven that he is capable of leadership in tough situations and that is what we need for the United States at this time.

Lou Johnson | 1:32 p.m. Aug. 11, 2007

As a country, we have so many serious problems to face, I suggest Talk-Show hosts are wasting our time by not exploring national issues in depth with Presidential Candidates. Competent leadership is urgently needed, so where do we find it?? So far, Mitt Romney has my vote.

Joe | 1:44 p.m. Aug. 11, 2007

I was disappointed with the tactics of Mikelson. It was very much a baiting session. I have listened to this on-air personality before during my travel through IA and surrounding states. Disappointing that he would try these tactics. Govenor Romney did a good job defending himself and his positions. I generally agree with his statements, that being 'anti-abortion' or 'pro-life' does not mean you are 'anti-free will'. These were not softball questions, because if Gov. Romney had answered them in agreement with Mikelson, there would have been a huge firestorm of controversy regarding his statements about overriding the Supreme Court, etc. This religion stuff is penny-ante, and will likely pass as soon as Church members stop being hyper-sensitive to it. So some people don't like the Mormon religion and those associated with it. That stopped being new in 1805! Let's move on already.

John Williams | 2:51 p.m. Aug. 11, 2007

Joe,

The Church was started in 1830, not 1805.

Ed Blackham | 3:27 p.m. Aug. 11, 2007

Mitt is the only candidate I trust. I am LDS, but that's not the only reason I like him. He has experience running businesses, and turning them around. He isn't a typical politician who wants the office but has no experience on how to fix problem. Mitt knows how to fix problems. Just look at the Olympics

dgr | 3:30 p.m. Aug. 11, 2007

This election will again be about voting against someone and not for someone.
Just like the last election where more people voted against Kerry and not really for Bush.

Too bad politics have morphed into what it has.
But president is more of a CEo than an expert in any of the issues. His/her talent whould be to pull in good people and then to manage them well.

I personally would vote for Joe Lieberman if he would run.

Oh yeah, I'm LDS and I won't be voting for Mitt unless it comes down to him and Hillary.

Michael | 7:57 p.m. Aug. 11, 2007

Tired of all the questions about his faith

Lenn creager | 11:11 p.m. Aug. 11, 2007

Mitt is a complete package. thereis nothing he laks to make a good president. He has it all

Phoenix Roberts | 9:06 p.m. Aug. 14, 2007

Sounds like Mikelson made a whole lot of assumptions about Latter Day Saints and about Gov. Romney, none of which turned out to be true.

Jay | 10:32 p.m. Aug. 15, 2007

As a lifelong Democrat and former elected official I will vote for Romney given the chance. I am sick and tired of sleezy, corrupt, dishonest polititians (which most of them are). They all take millions of dollars in "bribes" and "votes for sale" in the name of "campaign contributions". What other job can you to to for 4 or 5 years and become a multi-millionaire. With few exceptions, these people are "for sale to the highest bidder." Romney is a man of faith, honesty, family, integrity, and moralty. His religion does not make a bit of difference, but his character does. If his faith makes him a good moral family man, then bring it on, whatever faith it is. I would certainly prefer a man of faith rather than a slimey person with no faith. Romney's religion makes him the man of character he is. This country is in real deep trouble, and Romney is probably the most proven leader in the hunt. After 8 years of moral corruption, dishonesty, selling missle technology to the Chinese, selling pardons, pillaging of the peoples White House, and on and on, do we really want another Clinton in the White House? That was followed by 8 years of dumb and dumber (even though to his credit he was not "caught with his pants down"). I am ready for a sound business man with integrity, honesty, and morality, even though given the mean spirited atmosphere in DC in reality he won't be able to accomplish much.

Linda | 6:38 p.m. Aug. 17, 2007

Mickelson was like an annoying little dog ...I really hope people see an interview like this for what it is.
Mitt is not ashamed of being associated with his religion...he is trying to make the point, that he is running for President, and the talk time should be about issues, not his religion. It's crazy to hear it over and over! He needs his air time to count and some in the media are simply NOT WILLING to give him the respect he deserves as a wonderful candidate.
Want a smart, honest, committed , successful president? GO MITT.

Kathryn | 11:02 a.m. Aug. 21, 2007

I would love to hear more about what his position is on more of our country's issues. I would hate to have to vote on anyone based on their religion, or lack of it. I hope to find an honest, intelligent, moral, well-balanced leader who holds similar values and beliefs as mine. I don't think I will find anyone running who agrees with everything I think and believe. I hope the media can move on and get to important national issues so we can become an informed electorate.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.