Sorry, DN -- you're shilling for Romney again.The correct heading
for this article should read: Romney's 2008 liaison to evangelical voters is
again advocating for him. In other words, same-old-same-old where the Southern
Baptists are concerned.
I think that is great, my blood still boils over Huckabee and his comments about
the Devil, he knew the teachings of the church and yet he spinnnned that off the
road. But if Huckabee were to be running against Obama, I would plug my nose
and vote for him. I don't care what religion he is, but I care that he attacked
Romney vs Obama. A Mormon vs a Muslim in the Southern bible thumper's eyes. Most
of 'em won't believe any facts about Obama's place of birth or religion, no
matter who is saying it.
Qualifications instead of theology. Hmmm, novel concept that the evangelicals
need to learn.
Funny how things come full circle. Is Mormonism a strange religion?
Well....compared to what....Islam? My extended family is dyed in the wool,
southern baptist who have always believed that the mere mention of
"Mormonism" is a sin. After awhile, we just stopped
speaking about any matters of importance (all the important matters eventually
led to morality, politics, or religion). I guess I grew tired of hearing that
my religion (Mormonism) was an affront.Now we may see evangelicals
support Romney. Not convert to his religion....just support him. About time!
Maybe those Baptists are aiming to 'Save' Romney...
It's time for REAL CHANGE and REAL HOPE in Washington. Let's put in someone who
has had inumerable experiences in running a government and corporations, and not
a community organizer - again. Presidential qualifications equals Romney.
Thank you DeMoss for seeing that. Romney in 2012.
Any man who professes a religion had better live that religion, no matter who
his audience is. In the last election, Mitt Romney thought that he was running
for President. People saw him first as a "Mormon" and secondly as a
candidate. He probably never realized how curious America was about his
religion. He stood up for his beliefs without making people guess whether he was
'active' or not.This time, he is aware that he will have to wear two
hats all the time. One hat is the hat of the candidate. The other hat is the
hat of an "active Mormon". He is better prepared to wear both hats
and to answer the questions about "Mormons" as he tells us why he is
uniquely qualified to be the next President.
I don't particularly care whether a person lives his faith UNLESS he portrays
himself as actively observant and, at the same time, violates the principles of
his faith (in other words, acts the hypocrite).What I want to know
is whether the person will govern as a member of a particular faith first and an
American (serving all his/her constituents second), or will govern as an
American first and a member of the faith second. There are a lot of faiths
whose leaders are requiring their politican followers to act as members of the
faith first, to the detriment of the interests of their constituents who do not
follow the same faith or who do not actively live their faith. For me, the
politician MUST be an American first, serving ALL his/her constituents'
interests. I want to know which of the candidates will put the interests of all
"my blood still boils over Huckabee and his comments about the Devil, he
knew the teachings of the church"You sure about that? I'm
pretty sure that once a year there's a story in this newspaper about some study
that showed that most everyone outside of Mormonism doesn't know much other than
the very very most basic details of the religion.
People better get past religion in this election because at the end of the day
you have to either vote to give Obama 4 more years or choose another direction.
Romney is the best qualified candidate so make your choice... 4 more years of
socialism or jump start capitalism.
To patriot | 12:56 p.m. May 23, 2011 Cedar Hills, UT People better
get past religion in this election because at the end of the day you have to
either vote to give Obama 4 more years or choose another direction. Romney is
the best qualified candidate so make your choice... 4 more years of socialism or
jump start capitalism. -------------------------------In
a way you're right; in a way not. You're correct that people had better get
past religion or President Obama will win a second term. You're not correct
that Romney is the best qualified candidate -- the best qualified candidate is
NOT Romney; it's Huntsman.
Furry 1993:"You're not correct that Romney is the best
qualified candidate -- the best qualified candidate is NOT Romney; it's
Huntsman."Thanks for your opinion. We know Huntsman will have
at least one vote.People in my house will be voting for Romney. I
can see it now:Romney/Bachman 2012.
SB's voting for Mitt?Take it to the bank...orDon't hold your breath...Past practice would suggest SB's making
some kind of "promise" only to go back (flip-flop?) on the
"promise" when it counts.What goes around, comes
around?Time will only tell.
What choice do the evangelicals have, Obama? I think DeMoss' endorsement will be
much more receptive by evangelicals than in 2008 because of their absolute
disgust over Obama. Romney is the only clear-cut Republican contender that is
credible enough to defeat Obama. That is becoming increasingly apparent every
day. I am sure they would prefer Huckabee, but that is not an option anymore.
The other Republicans have not the gravitas to be a credible opponent against
Obama. Obama is the primary reason why evangelicals will vote for Romney.
Tom in CA 2:00 p.m.Romney/Bachmann 2012?Oh, I hope so.
We'd be guaranteeing Obama a second term if that happens
My choice right now would be Romney/Cain.
Romney is good a buisness? That's great. Obama is
pulling us out of the financial meltdown, repealed DADT, pervent another 9/11
and killed Osama Bin Laden. There's more to running a country than
running a buisness.
Tom in CA ---- "Romney/Bachman 2012???????????????"That's
as frightening as Trump/Palin.
@ pagan,"Obama is pulling us out of the financial meltdown"
What? are you talking about the real unemployment rate is around 18 percent, the
reported unemployment is at 9 percent, the rate of growth has been only 3
percent. When Ragan, pulled us out the carter's economy the rate of growth was 8
percent. when Clinton was presdent it 6 percent. the 800 billion stimulis
package failed Obama has added over 14 trillion to the national debt, Social
security and medicare are broke. Gas is over 4.00 dollars per gallon, there are
more people on food stamps to day then two years ago, Shall I go on praising
Obamas achivements? Mitt is the best chance for America!
@PaganIt's okay to say why you believe in a particular political
point of view. But don't be a propagandist for the administration. We are not
pulling out of the financial meltdown. We are wallowing in the mire. The
administration's one accomplishment is getting bin Laden and that's great, but
it's still the economy. Obama is weak there. His ideology won't allow him to
do what needs to be done to help the problem.And by the way, if the
Southern Baptists/Born Again Christians do decide to get behind Romney (Huntsman
is a non-factor) then Obama better start making plans to move back to Illinois
sooner rather than later.
One guy backs him and this makes this news put let go gaga? Mitt will lose in
the South again like he did in the last election.
If the Southern Evangelicals bury the hatchet with Mitt and his religion, and
back up someone with the likes of a Jim DeMint of South Carolina for his V.P.
running mate, then all the king's horses and all the king's men will not be able
to stop decent people from re-entering the White House again.It can
happen. Please don't discount all Evangelicals as ignorant Mormon-haters. I know
many who voted for Mitt in the last 2008 primaries, just here in So. Cal.I
believe they (Evangelicals) are taking a second look at this possibility.It will shake the Obama attack machine to the core.
If Romney can get the Southern Baptists, and then the Evangelicals, that would
be a HUGE coupe for his campaign. I'm still skeptical how high a percentage of
those votes he will capture, but it could be amazing for him.Now he
just needs to get the Wall Street and GOP Elite on his side believing that he
can: A) Unseat Obama, and B) Get us out of the economic mess we're in. He's a
shoe-in. Those are the only tasks he really has to deliver on for success.So he needs to keep from showing his angry temper, and annoying side. He
needs to show how presidential he can be (because when he's on, he's amazing),
and play his cards right with a few key player, supporters and primaries.
If Mitt and Huck run together that may be enough to swing the Southern vote.
I thought the baptist made the movie The God Maker?
I am not sure where the Evangelicals get off bashing the Mormons. Wouldn't this
Harold Camping who predicted the end of the world over the weekend be considered
"He ended the (Civility) project after two years because of a lack of
enthusiasm from politicians to sign onto a civility pledge."What did he get, three politicians to sign up? What a surprise that they
wouldn't get behind something as basic as civility. I stopped calling them
"Civil Servants" years ago.....
"He ended the project after two years because of a lack of enthusiasm from
politicians to sign onto a civility pledge."wow! Such a sad
commentary. We have a long way to go as a society. On the other hand, I am
guessing a lot of members of the church that Romney is a member of will be
voting for him because of his membership. I remember my daughter saying, when
she was about 5 years old, when I was watching a basketball game on TV, and she
came in and got on the rug and was doing some distracting entertainment there:
"Which one are we, dad? I can understand a mere child choosing a team to
root for based on identity politics, but it looks to me as though a lot of
people vote based on cultural identities and not the issues, as if the
membership in the same tribe, clan or church suffices to define the candidates.
That's true in Nigeria, for instance.
dad of 5 sons:oil is a commodity. if you want to , go ahead and tell your
Congress member to have the US commodities agencystop speculators. Most
the price increase is about speculation. Surely you are not against a little
good old fashioned capitalism, are you? Good luck getting any R congressmen to
stand up to the commodities gambling.
Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson says that oil should be around $60-$70 a barrel
based on the fundamentals of supply and demand." The rest of the price is