Can't we appreciate what our current president is doing right while looking
forward to someone who might be even better? Throw out ignorance, bias,
insults, accusations and vote conscience. It isn't about a specific political
party, religion or any other demographic. It is about the best interest of the
people, the country, and the well-being of our free society. How do we protect
from dangers both domestic and abroad and provide opportunities for everyone to
reach for their potential? All the sniping, slurs, and pettiness are
destructive and unappealing. Step up and be better.
There will never be a black president. Wait...
Can't we all just get along?--Rodney King
Will the immigration issue ridicule him again?
JoeBlow,If you are going to make personal attacks at me for sharing
a general opinion... I guess I will make a personal response.If my
goal was to be some hotshot CEO I would take you up on that offer in a
HEARTBEAT! My goal is to live a comfortable life with my family and
persue a career that I love and NOT COMPLAIN about others who are doing the
same. If that means I make 30k or 10.7mil a year so be it. I live my life
knowing that I answer to myself and that I am accountable for the actions that
impact my future. Is that cocky or responsible?Im just not a big
fan of people who complain and try to blame their problems on other people...
Manatee,My you are cocky. Unfortunately in a huge corporation there
is but one CEO and thousands of workers.Get out of school. Go get a
job. Let see if you are an average worker or CEO.Wanna bet?
Both Romney and Huntsman are just spoiled little rich boys who have really done
very little on their own. In that regard, they are no different than Paris
Hilton!As men of substance, they are lacking in character.
Everything that makes them who they are was given to them by their rich
parents.Being lucky enough to be born to rich parents is not a good
qualification for public office!
Truthseeker..Sounds like people need to quit being AVERAGE workers
and start becoming CEO's...
@Independentyou: "People complain that the rich keep getting richer. Isn't
that a good thing? Of course we don't want the poor to keep getting poorer, but
we solve that problem by bringing the poor up"So, how do we "bring
the poor up"? I would suggest at least one factor in bringing "the
poor up" is that all employees share in the success of a corporation's
profits--not just those at the top. The pay of CEOs is 265 times greater than
the pay of the average worker. In 1965 the difference was only 24 times.
Today, the average CEO earns in ONE DAY what the average worker earns in ONE
Arm of Orion & Independent...Bless your hearts. I'm glad to see that
there are others out there who see and understand the big picture.
Manateeshirt, isn't it odd how we call America the land of opportunity, but
anyone who takes advantage of the opportunity and succeeds is despised, and
calls to confiscate their wealth go up?People complain that the rich
keep getting richer. Isn't that a good thing? Of course we don't want the poor
to keep getting poorer, but we solve that problem by bringing the poor up, not
by taking the rich down. Equality is great, but do we want be equally poor, or
Manatee welcome to the internets where stating your opinion is more akin to
giving a declaration of war. Although I think that the problem is that we have
lost the true spirit of America...amateurism. In the past amateurs built
themselves up. They fought and struggled yes some failed but others succeeded
and with that brought jobs. We need more amateurs risking it all to bring back
the power of this nation. The amateurs fought in the fires of adversity and it
is in these fires that the fates of men and nations are forged.
Someone once said "Religion poisons everything." Anybody can see it. Look at how
religious wars, bickering, and factions are tearing the world apart.Religious extremists (the "pure" and "true" believers) flew airliners into the
WTCs; religious bickering has split this country in two over same-sex marriage;
religions are vying for political influence and power, even trying to re-write
history to claim this is a "Christian" nation!The worst power
mongers are those coming from the group claiming to be followers of the
non-political man who said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..."A close second in power mongering are the followers of a man in whose
name people are beheaded or stoned almost daily, and whose teachings include
"the Satanic Verses".As a result of the horrible reputations of the
religious people, atheism is the fastest growing "religious affiliation" in the
country. People want to distance themselves from the bigots, fanatics,
fundamentalists, extremists - in other words, the "religious".Those
aspiring to be POTUS must talk to and represent ALL Americans, not just the
religious fanatics. The atheist (and non-religious) population must be reckoned
I am new to this whole Deseret News comment board thing and I already LOVE how
riled up you people get when someone actually takes a stance.I was
going to write a bunch of sarcastic remarks in response to your comments, but I
try to keep in mind that this is a comment board and not a bicker board.Instead, I will just sum up my feelings on the matter and then you can
agree or disagree. I am a HUGE proponent of rewarding sacrifice, hardwork,
innovation and perserverance. The reward that capitalism offers for such things
is the incentive that drives America's success. The reason I get upset when
people whine about the wealthy is because this is America! The land of
opportunity! As ObamaRep stated in his rebuttle to my comment, the leaders of
some of this nations most successful companies started at ground zero and worked
their way up.With that in mind... the problem with this country
isn't necessarily with the wealthy is it? It is with the people who whine with
unwillingness to make the sacrifice to get there. Im jumping off the fence and
taking a stance. Sue me.
Romney/Palin......Love it. Can wait to see the debates, the interviews, and the
entire conservative platform fall on its face...even better would be
Beck/Palin....oh wait thats right....Beck has no interest in politics. He's
"just" and entertainer. A very wealthy entertainer that panders fear and
falsehoods.Romney/Palin...Romney/Palin...We can hope for it!
Also, Manatee, your unfortunate tendency to equate the non-uber wealthy with
empty pocketed people on social services is not winning you any points
manateeshirt | 11:42 a.m. I'm not even rich. Im a broke
college student. Im a kid...=================That explains your immature, clueless, cocky rants.The Bush
era tax cuts contributed to the deficit.They did not create jobs.They should be repealed. They were unfunded. We couldn't
afford them then, we can't afford them now. Otherwise, we can tack
on $600 billion+ to the deficit. Not sure at all why you're
so bent on shilling for the top 2%, but have it. Maybe someday, you'll learn
Manatee,There you go again. READ AGAIN WHAT I WROTE and thenjustify this statement."JoeBlow was blaming the rich for the
middle class' problems"Show any statement that I made that justifies
your statement.For a college student, your reading comprehension is
@JoeBlow 4:21Okay, perhaps I did misunderstand your point. I do
think, sad to say, there are some LDS people who would not vote for a candidate
if they were athiest, muslim, or a scientologist. Personally,
religion isn't that big of a deal to me. If there's a candidate for office I
really like, I don't care if he or she practices voodoo.
@ObamaRepublicanDid those individuals create jobs when they poor or
middle class? Or, as a result of years of hardwork, sacrifice, innovation and
perserverance did they reach levels of success that opened up opportunities not
only for themselves but for other people as well? (I hope the answer to that
question is obvious) That is the American spirit. That is what will save the
middle class IF it is embraced. JoeBlow was blaming the rich for
the middle class' problems. In THE land of opportunity, we control our destiny,
as is evident by the examples you provided in your comment. The rich provide
the employment for the middle class... BUT the middle class is only stuck in the
middle with (or without) those jobs if they allow themselves to be.The remedy for our economic woes and troubles can be found in what it means to
be an American. It can be found in the examples of the individuals you listed
ObamaRep.The key is just to do it! Thats the problem...Thanks for the attempted attack that strengthened the point I was making.
The credit card statement was a euphamistic comment referring to poor spending
and saving habits by the middle class.Maybe to get a better idea
about where you are coming from with this whole middle class thing...Who are the middle class?Why are they the middle class?How did
they end up in the middle class?What are they doing in the middle
class?Where do the middle class usually work?Answering those
questions might be able to shed some light on what could be done to save them
from a tragic socio-economic death.
Lets think about the word conservatism, what are we conserving? The status quo!
Big Business want thing to stay the same or move very slowly. As I
have written before conservatism by its very nature slows innovation, slows
entry into markets, slows free trade and maintains control.The
Powers that be want to maintain the way things are done. Change is the great
unknown, if you listen to CNBC you will hear the reporters say time after time
the Markets hate Change. Why because it creates uncertainty, which makes
forcasting profits more difficult.
@manateeYour argument is very flawed if you take a look at who
created jobs in the US for the last 150 years it has rarely been the rich. So
where did the corporation come from?Here are a few examplesAndrew Carnegie was an immigrant and started as a factory worker.Henry Ford son of immigrants and watch repair manJohn
Davison Rockefeller son of lumber man and Travelling salemanBill
Gates son of from a middle class familySteve Jobs adopted son of a
middle class familySam Walton Farmers son and self madeRay Kroc son of immigrants and self madeThe list goes on and on.
As I said your argument is flawed. The biggest employers in the country were
started by Sons of immigrants and poor or middle class families.
Take a pill manatee.Read before you spout off. I merely
stated the problem. You assumed the rest.Do you disagree that it is
happening? Do you think it is not a problem?Do you think it is good
for the country?Has the wealth not been distributed upward?Calm now? The reasons why it has happened are certainly complex
and debatable. Hardly all done by credit cards as you suggest.And hardly done by lack of pure capitalism as you also suggest. Capitalism is
good, pure capitalism, not so much as corps will do anything for that last
dime.But a dying middle class is not good for anyone, including the
rich. The trend must be reversed for the country to prosper.I dont know all the solutions, but we better find them.
I knew a guy who moved to Las Vegas to teach there because of the higher pay.
He said that if he had known how un-caring and oppresive to actual progress the
administration of the Clark County School district was, he would not have
moved.Utah has about 30 school districts, Michigan about 500. Yet
Michigan only has 5 times the population.The main componant in
educational spending is teacher pay. The assumption of the educational cost per
capita studies is that "spending per student" either equals skilled teachers or
better student-teacher ratios. However, this is not exactly true.
Beyond the fact it also equals different amounts of security personnel and other
things, it may just reflect a higher cost of living. A teacher who
makes 20% as much in most parts of California realistically is making less money
than a teacher in Utah. Thus the monetary comparison is totally skewed.
To Pro Education, If Utah does not "fund education adequately" than why
are its results so much better than other states?The most abysmally
performing district is Detroit. It is so bad some have called for criminal
charges for those responsible for the non-education going on.In
addition there are real criminal charges for embezelment and mis-approproation
of funds, and that is only where actual laws were broken. The idiots who wasted
money for inflated prices to purchase land in deals where it can not be proven
that they were actually trying to get any person gain are getting off scott
free.One thing is Utah does not have the duplicated, bloated school
district bureaucracies of some states. Tax dollars for education is a myth,
since paying a public relations consultant to make your district look good does
not cause students to learn more. Also, spending money on text books that then
get thrown out so when you start a course you have none and have to buy another
set is a total waste of resources.
What is the solution Joe Blow?Take from those who contribute most to
the economy and give it to those who contribute minimal amounts?Where do you think middle class jobs come from? Do they spring forth from the
beard of Zues? They are created... by...stay with me now... companies and
coporations... that... are created by... the... WEALTHY! Its called capitalism
YO! Punishing the wealthy, the job creators, the economy stimulators only
scratches their status and bank account while laying a heavy beat-down on the
middle class that they employ.It is interesting how over the past 20
years the government has been pulling our country and economy away from
pure-capitalism... and how you mentioned that the middle class has been
systematically shrinking over the past 20 years... correlation? Uh...yeah.The "dying middle-class" has dug their own grave with their credit
cards.Im not even rich. Im a broke college student. Im a kid...
and I can see it.
Fender Bender, Is anyone self-described "overly religious"? It is a
term that by its very nature is unliquely to be used as a self-description. I
have known few if any people who admitted to being too committed to religion.I am many others feel we need to live our religion better, live up to it
better and so on. However I have never met someone who says "I go to church to
much, I just wish I could stay away more" and few are those who say "I wish I
spent less time reading the Bible and Book of Mormon and more in reading the
newspaper".The accusations against Romney are even more ludicrous.
He has served as a bishop and a stake president.
JoeBlow, Elder Oaks specifically denounced using religion as a criteria
for selecting a candidate in his speech at BYU-Idaho last November.Utah was the second state to elect a Jew as governor, only beat out by Idaho.
Utah may also be the only state to date to have had a Buddhist as a member of
its Supreme Court.
Jon Huntsman, Sr.'s Catholic connections are even deeper. In the May 22, 1993
Church News we learn he was invited to visit the Vatican and while there met
with the Pope.This was due both to his work with the Cathedral of
the Madeline and a large donation he had made to St. Vincent De Paul.
This article missed a major issue, how Catholics feel about Mormons. It
hinted at it with Huntsman's mention of his children attending Catholic schools,
but it did not explore the issue more.The "Religious Right" is at
least as much Catholic as Protestant. The pro-life movement is a largely
Catholic phenomenon, and the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 was totally
due to his success with Catholic voters.Of late, with Francis
Cardinal George coming to speak at BYU and the cooperation by LDS and Catholic
people on Prop 8, as well as the Catholic dominated NOM having a Mormon on its
board, we have seen growing Catholic/Mormon cooperation.However in
trying to see what I could learn about Huntsman's religion, I learned that the
claims that his "soft" Mormonism are in contrast to his father are not fully
backed by the evidence. Jon Huntsman, Sr. has better Catholic credentials than
his son. In the Feb. 27, 1993 Church News we learn that Huntsman, Sr. was a
member of the fund-raising commitee for the renovation of the Cathedral of the
Madeline in Salt Lake City.
Dear LDS Liberal; sorry I'm late with this response but, As I understand
the founding of these United States, it was through religious freedom to worship
Almighty God and have freedom of choice,and freedom from persecution. Therefore,
came people called Quakers, Lutherans, Baptist, even Catholics, to name a few.
All were considered Christians. As the country opened its doors to all peoples
seeking that same freedom, other ethnic groups came with different religious
backgrounds.and ALL were welcomed- to come and build this great country, in a
land choice above all other lands.Why even those that were brought here as
slaves were eventually given their freedom so, Yes, belief in an Almighty God, a
Divine Creator is what this country stands for.[Personally, I like a kind loving
God, not one I have to be afraid of,always full of wrath.]Let us
realize that anyone born in this country can run for and be elected to any
office. Let us, again, separate emotion from fact, color from intelligence,
religion from qualification, even desire to serve from political experience, and
consider, prayerfully or with profound thought, for whom we should cast our vote
in EVERY election!
TD7, Huntsman served an LDS mission in Taiwan. This is closely
related to his current position as US ambassador to China.I can not
definitively state anything about his religious activity since then. However
serving as an LDS missionary is more religious activity and work than Kennedy
ever showed.Beyond this, it is open to question whether Huntsman's
commetns are more for US or Chinese consumption. China dislikes foriegn
religious figures, and when he was nominated there were claims he would work to
get the Church recognized in China. He has to constantly work to prevent any
idea he is a covert Mormon operative so he can be an effective ambassador.The fact that the Church openly forbids expatriot members in China from
sharing the gospel with citizens shows that the admonition to preach the gospel
has to be tempered with the need to be subjected to law.
Dont you get it Manatee?The middle class is shrinking. The rich are
getting richer and the poor poorer. These trends have accelerated recently (20
years)Do you think that is good for the US or any country for that
matter?There has been a migration of wealth towards the rich. Does
that word suit you better than redistribution?Whatever the cause it
is not healthy for our country. Dont believe me? Look at Mexico and countless
@ WHATNOW?Ha! I couldn't help but laugh when I read your rant.Say hello to continuous re-distribution of wealth to the wealthy?Where do you think wealth comes from dear? Do you think that Republicans
take money out of the poor and middle class and put it in the pockets of the
rich? HA! There is no wealth from those socio-economic classes to re-distribute.
Did you know that over 60% of taxes are paid by 2% of the population? Who are
the 2%? The wealthy. Where does that money go? Probably to your empty pockets
through social services. While the government takes 0% to 15% of your income,
they are taking 33% to 50% of the wealthy's AND re-distributing it to.... to...
who? Not their country club or tennis buddy... the poor and middle class.Im assuming you are complaing about tax-breaks that Bush gave to the
rich? The consequence? Intelligent re-investing into the economy not into broke
peoples pockets.Quit hating on the successful.
Actually what the 1992 and 2002 comparison shows is that Romney does not need
to reinvent himself, he needs to reinvent the presidency.The big
question is the presidency a position of running the government, or developing
the policy of the government.Since FDR and in some ways since
Theodore Roosevelt, it has had a large policy componant. However there is still
an administrative componant. What Romney needs to do is convince
conservatives that he can be counted on to hold to pro-life, pro-marriage
policies enough that his executive skills outweight his lack of policy
strength.I am not sure it is possible to convince people of that.
Romney care in Massachusetts is as much a problem with tea partiers as being a
Mormon and having donated to Planned Parenthood are with Evangelicals. Today is a big day for Romney. If Pete Hoestra who he has supported for
over a year wins the Republican nomination for Michigan governor it will be a
vindication for Romneyism and a defeat for sleezeism. OK, my dislike for our
current AG who is the moral equivalent of Sanford or Vitter is very strong.
I think a Mormon would have less chance in Democrat circles. It was the "New
Republic" that way back in 2007 was publishing articles claiming a Mormon
president would be a threat because he would answer to the Mormon leaders more
than the people.Also the protests against the Mormon Church and
boycotts of all Mormons and Utahns done by the generally Democrat leaning Prop-8
partisans would make Democrat primaries extremely hard to win for any Mormon, at
least in California, New York, New England, New Jersey and Iowa.
GWB, I think you make good points in bringing up Romney's donations to
Planned Parenthood.I also question how much of Romney's being
trounced in the south was due to the Mormon issue and how much was due to the
opposition of National Right to Life.The fact that Ernest Istook won
the Republican nomination for governor in Oklahoma says that Mormons can win in
the south, they just have to be truly pro-life Mormons who support the cause of
social conservativism. Other good examples of Mormons with
political futures are Raul Labrador and maybe Jeff Flake, although I like him as
a supporter of immigration reform which causes some to denounce him as a
facilitator of crimes.Rob Bishop might in theory has some potential,
but he is not a flashy candidate. Orrin Hatch would have some, but his support
of embryonic stem-cell research has alienated the Right to Life types, even if
he was a leading figure in the attempts to prevent the inclusion of abortion
funding in health care reform. One other Mormon who has potential is Wally
Little Child DUCK. The black helicopters are circling.
A person who has good morals, who has good family values, and who believes in
God, is of much greater value, than one who is an atheist, believes in marxist
values, and proudly declares us to the world as being an 'unchristian'
nation!!Haven't we had enough of that? Have you ever
thought that we may not even be given the chance to vote on a president again?
Our present president may just use his "executive authority" and declare a
presidential vote ... 'unconstitutional' and outdated...call for 'martial law'
and change his title to: Dictator!! He already has his own government in
place.Is having someone be a "Mormon" worse than that?What do Mormons believe in anyway?GodGovernmentA
divinely inspired ConstitutionFreedom for the individualFamily (A
Declaration to the World)MoralityMarriageIndustryThriftHonesty13 Articles of FaithA good Mormon would
govern with common consentinstead of "ramming things down the throat"as this administration has done.Romney is one Mormon who has
stepped forward, willing to put into effect the wisdom of economics that he
learned from a father, who taught him about production and profit...one who
ClarkHippo, you totally missed the point.Of course LDS must vote for
non-lds candidates because, for the most part, that is all there is outside of
utah.My point is that there are religious tests used by many people
including LDS. Most LDS (and many others) would not ever vote for
the groups I mentioned (atheist, scientologist, muslim, etc)Notice I
did not include in my list Catholic, evangelical, Baptist and other more
mainstream.But, the country in general is more likely to include LDS
in the first list than the second.
It is simply up to the evangelicals in the Republican Party to look past
Romney's religion to possibly nominate and then possibly elect the one guy that
could turn around the economy. If they can't get over this insane religious
bias, then they have no one else to blame but themselves.
Worth Repeating !Civil | 2:46 a.m. Aug. 1, 2010 What they
should say:"What my religion is" is a different question than my
position on religion."I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. Some people call us Mormons."I believe Jesus
Christ is the Son of God, and Savior of mankind."A tenant of our
Church, from the beginning, is 'We believe in worshiping Almighty God according
to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let
them worship how, when, or what they may.'""Those are my
beliefs.""As President of the United States, my job is to protect
the rights of all men and women to freedom of conscience, and yes, freedom of
religion."The free exercise of conscience is the most fundamental of
American, indeed, human rights, and is guaranteed in our Constitution. As
President I will defend and support that Constitution, and those rights."
@JoeBlow 9:02Nice try, but your argument has no legs whatsoever. The
fact is, LDS voters vote for non-LDS candidates all the time, especially during
presidential elections.Fact - John McCain carried Utah in 2008,
although Barack Obama had strong showings in many parts of the state. At the
same time, Peter Caroon was re-elected mayor of Salt Lake County. Are you going
to try and convince us none of the people who voted for McCain, Obama and Caroon
were LDS?And what about LDS people who live outside of Utah? Are you
going to convince us they never vote, unless there's an LDS person on the
@joeyjrI understand your point, but the fact is that Utah went
overwhelmingly for George W. Bush in two general elections. Utahans (and
Mormons generally) will certainly vote for someone who is a Born Again
Christian. The reverse has yet to be shown.
I've tried posting this twice. if Romney is a faithful Mormon and the Prophet
told him God wanted something done, what would you faithful Mormons expect him
to do? Follow the prophet?
I'm LDS. I would vote for someone of another religion if I thought they had the
integrity and they really represent me. If Mitt has realized that this health
care will not work, I would consider voting for him. We need to be "Self
Reliant" and take better care of ourselves. The American diet is killing
people. I shouldn't have to pay for other's bad choices.
I am a Mormon and I would proudly vote for a Baptist, Catholic, Jew or Mormon as
long as they were honestly committed to honoring, protecting and defending the
Constitution of the United States and the freedom's it protects. I have great
respect for faithful people of all religions and do not consider a persons
religion when voting, only their character. If they believe in God and truly
practice their religion then they have my support. God knows how we have been
deceived by many past presidents who claimed to have our best interests at heart
but turned out to be nothing more than self-serving politicians.
Why does sharing the Health Care load seem to set American conservatives' teeth
on edge?One night in one of your hospitals cost my insurance over
$6,000. In my home province of Alberta the same bill would have been $200, of
which none would have been billed to me directly.Surely
fill-in-the-blank-"care" doesn't have to mean that the world has gone to pot!
Requirements for my presidential vote:1. Communicates ideas I think
are good for the country2. Demonstrates ability to work successfully3. Has a track record of success under pressure4. Appears humble5.
Utahns don't count in any presidential election. Their vote for a Republican is
already assured, so you can count on them not caring what an actual Utahn
(Mormon) thinks or feels one way or the other.
Unfortunately, several of the posters here are correct. While many (certainly
not all) LDS are loyal Republicans, that loyalty is not necessarily returned -
and certainly not by the most strident in the Christian Right.They
view us as unqualified by our religion. In the last primary race, Gov.
Huckabee's rise was essentially in response to Mitt Romney's early good showing.
Many in the Christian Right just could not support a Mormon (they were quite
forthcoming on this point).I am hesitate to abandon the Republican
Party. But I do think it is time LDS politicians had a forthright conversation
with the party elders to motivate them to fix this. We should be welcome to run
for any office and receive full support from other party members without regard
to our religion.The "big tent" has gotten awfully small of late. It
needs an addition.
I've been reading Romney's latest book. I'm not sure I agree with him on some
issues, but I give him credit for having some well thought out plans about the
direction the country should be going. At this point, I'm really more interested
in competence than political ideology, and in that regard, you can't deny that
Mitt Romney would be a good choice. You might not always agree with him, but you
can bet the country wouldn't fall apart under his watch, which is more than
we've had in a long time. Jon Huntsman seems like a pretty smart guy. I'm not
from Utah, so I don't know much about his politics, but certainly someone who is
so in touch with China would be an asset to our country. I think Barrack Obama
seems like a nice enough guy. I don't agree with his world view very much, but
had he been competent at his job, I would seriously consider voting for him. He
and his party have spent us into oblivion, however, so I don't see how he
deserves a second term.
Wow! couldn't agree with you more, onewhotries (2:43pm)Instead of
dividing and ridiculing, which has become our national past-time, we should be
following God's injunction about prayer:"If My people, who are
called by My Name, will humble themselves, and pray and seek My Face, and turn
from their wicked ways, then I will hear them from heaven, and will forgive
their sin and heal their land." (2Ch7:14)That is actually one strong
point of G. Beck's with which I also strongly agree. Only our Father, Creator
and God can heal and change hearts and give us true peace. I have always been
willing to vote and campaign for the candidate who I felt was best for our
country, irrespective of all the other trappings (as you mentioned so well.)I'll take an honest, ethical non-Christian over one who calls himself
one and then humiliates his family and his country with his immorality and
philandering. (Is that Still a word?) I will disagree with Mormon doctrines all
day long, but I will vote one in office with no problem- if I share his dream
for America. (Sorry, NO to Harry Reid!)
onewhotries | 2:43 p.m. We are suppose to be a Christian country..."========== NewsFlash - No, we are not.God
fearing, yes.Endowned by our Creator with rights, yes.Christian, no.
I read all of the comments[didn't have anything more important to do] and agreed
with quite a few. Some thoughts; what if those of us who believe in
the power of prayer would pray for a good qualifying person to come forth and
run for president in 2012, and those who do NOT believe in such a power,
read,re-search, and THINK on finding that person? What if one of us, with all of
our opinions, apply for the job? What if we post all of the constitution, study
it and apply those rules to how we select a candidate- and then vote? Maybe
we'll find another George Washington,who,by the way, prayed! Do we wait 'til the
constitution is "hanging by a thread"? Do we govern by law or emotion? Help me,
here!We are suppose to be a Christian country,we follow Christ and His
teachings;love one another, not divide by color,race,or creed-religion.Maybe it won't be any of the names mentioned, in 2012. Will the candidate come
from the north,south,east,or west? Sounds foolish? Reread some of your
statements without emotion; see what I mean???
It should be clear to these people by now that America does not want an LDS
President.It is fine with me if they want to spend their own money,
a fool and his money shall soon part. The economy can use a boost
from what the Republicans did to us all for so many years.Just say
no again in 2012 for LDS U.S. President.
Article quote: "Then, Romney attempted to confront concerns about his Mormonism
directly, in a speech on religion delivered at the George H.W. Bush Presidential
Library in Texas in December 2007."Not true. That is not what his
speech was about. I wanted him to confront the whisperings about his religion
but that's now what he did, other than the 15 or 20 seconds in which he said he
would not, as President, be led around by the nose by the prophet of the LDS
church. Google "Romney and Faith in America speech" watch it for yourself.Best political speech I have EVER heard in my life!Romney
Huntsman is a traitor and is not to be trusted.
Re: ObamaRepublicanI hate to admit it but you are probably correct.
If people of the LDS faith began to gain significant control of higher offices,
the Gellies in the GOP would go nuts and do something akin to Haun's Mill; maybe
not with physical violence but every loathsome tactic politically, culturally,
and socially would be employed. It is time for a new political
party, one that actually represents the people and is more interested in doing
the right things than in getting re-elected. Because of the
treatment Romney got last election I have quit donating any money to the
Republican party and now give directly to candidates of both parties that have a
real vision for the future. Sadly, they are few in number.
Dutchman, you have a good point about Mitt's religion being scrutinized but not
Obama's. (9:06 am today) It came 'too little too late' for those who cared, and
not at all for the libs who could care less.However, I would
disagree with you on Glenn Beck's in-roads with conservative evangelicals. He's
trying very hard to convince us all that LDS are Biblical Christians. But we
know that he's ignorant about the history and doctrines of his adopted religion,
as well as what Biblical validity is.Mormons on the whole are great
people, neighbors, citizens and friends. But those of us who smile and allow
Glenn & you to try and redefine Biblical teachings are just being
non-confrontational. We know that your doctrines are "polytheistic, polygamous
and thoroughly pagan"- to quote the late Dr. Walter Martin. That's not
"hateful" or anti-LDS, it's just the facts, Bro.Glenn is sincere,
insightful and concerned about our country's back-sliding. But his politics and
passion are why he's being accepted- not that he's convinced any knowledgeable
Biblical Christians that Mormonism has fit into the Biblical mold, post-Joseph
C'mon- it's all about image for the dim-switches:It would be nice to
have a "good guy" like Mitt represent America, if that image is your persuasion.
GW had a clean image before Iraq, JFK had one before his affairs spilled out,
MLKing was the righteous minister-activist before his infidelity...Obviously Dems are just as thrilled as Europeans to have a "hip" Black
Democrat prez. be our poster-boy. It wasn't just his royal blackness that
excited them all, 'cuz Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts could've filled that bill. It's
the whole enchalada of a lib, swingin' dude... Drug days behind him, admiration
for his impressive accomplishments aside- His swagger says it all.So
let's not hack on Mitt for constantly re-inventing himself or flip-flpping. He
knows what didn't work last time around. Shazandra got it: What Mormons don't
get re: the whole conundrum of religion is not that there's anti-Mormon bias in
the country per se.It's that there's a majority who know the history
of Mormonism. Who invented flipping doctrines and practices for PR, statehood
or to avoid prison?
re: moodyblue77 | 10:28 p.m. July 31, 2010 Personally, as an
Independent with strong Libertarian leanings, I'd love to see Bachman and Tebow
run on the GOP ticket in 2012.Romney's should tell the Evangelical
right to get lost. Then, MR could run as a Social moderate and fiscal
conservative. A ticket of Mitt and Charlie Crist or Ron Paul is
something that, I feel, has real merit.
Every Mormon Republican on this board should ask this question. Why am I part
of a party that can not stand Mormons on the national ticket?The
Evangelical Right tollerates us western religious zealots, but would Hawns Mill
us if they thought we were gaining control. Listen to the rhetoric of those
standing in front of Temple Square each General Conference time and remember you
vote just like they do!
Above all, I think the country looks at the very one sided political atmosphere
in Utah, where we do not fund education adequately and the Mormon Church seems
to control many of the lawmakers. This is as fearful as the "Taliban" for some
and maybe rightfully so.
home25 | 9:43 p.m. Aug. 1, 2010 the constitution was written for moral
honest GOD WORSHIPING PEOPLE it will take someone who believes that way and
knows how to talk to GOD IN PRAYER to run this country.Find that someone and we
will have a chance if we as a nation turn to God also. -------------What constitution did you read? The Talibans?Our (the US) Constitution reads: "...but no religious Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States."Where did you get your idea that it was any
Poyman @ 9:53 wrote, "How can anybody be supportive of a candidate who is a
mormon, or a catholic, or an evangelist, or whatever.... who says "I'm not all
that religious"... What the heck does that mean?"Huntsman did not
say "I'm not all that religious". The actual quote was "I can't say I am overly
religious". Huntsman didn't expand on what he meant by "overly
religious". In my mind, someone who has a holier-than-thou attitude is overly
religious. Someone who refuses to vote for a particular candidate becuase they
are not "Christian" enough, or not "Mormon" enough is overly religious in my
opinion. Someone who assumes Huntsman is not a faithful member of his religion
simply because of an off-the-cuff comment is overly religious in my opinion.
What Romney needs to say, especially to the evangelical psychos is, "I'm a
Mormon, deal with it!" And leave it at that. Let Upchuckabee rant and rave all
he wants. Remember Mitt, Let you light shine, don't hide it under a bushel.What I want in a President is someone who can actually do the job. Not
a pretender who is in way over his head like our current President.Huntsman? He's not the brightest bulb in the building but he uses Daddy's
money well. I wouldn't vote for Huntsman for water commissioner in Peoa.
It is interesting that Romney's religion was probed over and over by the media
while Obama's liberation theology religion taught by his pastor for twenty
years, Jeremiah Wright, was not. Now we have the consequence of a true big
government socialist in the white house. Although Glenn Beck does not support
or believe Romney is the best choice for President I believe Beck is helping
many evangelical conservative Christians to accept Mormons like himself as
Christians. Beck has made many inroads with the evangelicals and recently spoke
at the commencement service of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.
Isn't it interesting that the most opposition to a Mormon politician comes not
from the Liberals, but from the Conservative Christians in the Rebuplican
Party?It must be nice to belong to a political party that would
never vote for you as president because of your religion.
Huntsman stands for nothing, including his faith and should never be President.
Romney needs to quit apologizing for his faith and run on who he is. In general
we need better people to step into the political arena to shape this country's
future so voters actually have a quality choice. Right now, in Washington, the
clowns are running the circus.
As a person who was raised in a Protestant faith I would vote for a Mormon
before I would for many other faiths. Aren't Mormons considered to be
unquestionably honest and moral? We need more of that in our government!
Truthseeker read Romney’s papers on START. Senate shouldn’t ratify
treaty! New START is a victory for Russia…line-by-line
analysis of agreement, concluded every single provision favors Russia or is
neutral; not one favors the US.The world would be safer if there
were no weapons of mass destruction. The world is safer if America is strong.
The stronger we are relative to nations like Russia, the safer the world is.Missile defense is an urgent priority we must not allow to be
restricted.Article2, Section2, Clause2 of the Constitution states
the president may only enter treaties after the Senate has reviewed and approved
of them (“advise and consent…two-thirds majority”). What does
START have? Its own commission, which can decide what the treaty means after it
enters into force — effectively making a new treaty by altering its
elements without review and consent of the Senate.That’s
right, a “Bilateral Consultative Commission” gets to decide what the
parties meant when they signed the papers. So, Obama can decide what he wants it
to mean after telling senators it means something else to get their votes
— or any other future administration that thinks like Obama.
C'mon Truthseeker!Mitt's such a nice guy. How many cardboard
cutouts would look that good? But you nailed it (11:54 pm): He is
a slick, well-connected schmoozer. He's sincere, constantly re-inventing
himself and his positions (i.e. Flip-Flopping), moderately centrist, and a
family man. He's a quick learner of public response and only needs a second
chance to alter his persona and positions...Wait. That is what
Mrmnism has been doing since 1830. So Romney hasn't fooled those who know what
a Mormon is: Just give them a few years of negative public scrutiny and they'll
change on a dime and call it revelation.That, my friends, is why the
non-LDS won't vote for a Mormon. Pretty soon you'll be denying that polytheism
or pagan freemasonry was ever a part of your heritage...(No foul
cries, please. I'm 7th generation LDS and don't need anyone telling me my
It isn't Romney's religion which should give us pause in voting for him, it is
his ignorance in foreign policy matters. Romney stated during a 2008 campaign
debate that UN weapons inspectors weren't in Iraq prior to our invasion. WRONG.
Recently he made another blunder about the START treaty. I can't
imagine why Republicans and especially Conservatives when MA Gov. Romney signed
into law state-funded abortion coverage.Me thinks Romney is just
another slick, well-connected shmoozer.
Folks, it’s all about the economy! Obama told NBC News,
"Americans (will) remember policies that got us into this mess.” HOPE SO!
Jan 3rd, ‘07 day Dems took over Senate/Congress. Dems' forced banks to
make bad loans. Liberal Congress = Toxic Loans. Great job Barry! At the time
DOW closed at 12,621.77. GDP previous quarter 3.5%. Unemployment 4.6%. Bush's
Econ policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION! House Fin Svcs & Senate Banking taken over by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
The econ meltdown happened 15 months later in what part of the economy? BANKING
AND FIN SVCS!!! From ‘01 Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop risky
Fannie/Freddie. Thanks DEMS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP
and 4.6% unemployment... to this CRISIS (and others) by dumping 5-6 TRILLION
Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. 3rd
highest pay-off guy and anti reform: hypocrite in Chief Obama! So when a LIB
tries to blame Bush...REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK
OVER! ***** MITT ’12 *****
I just don't get some of these comments...How can anybody be
supportive of a candidate who is a mormon, or a catholic, or an evangelist, or
whatever.... who says "I'm not all that religious"... What the heck does that
mean? I like to float with the wind, without commitment?As for
Romney... I am tired of people calling him someone without deep seeded beliefs.
He changed his position on one social issue and one only and now he's a flip
flopper (pulleeze)... Obama and his crew make Romney look like a minor leaguer
when it comes to flip flopping.....And the whole health care deal...
what is that all about? Romney was the Governor of a state who was getting eaten
alive by increased healthcare costs that were dumped on them by folks getting
free healhcare by simply refusing to buy it for themselves.... So the people of
the state wanted a requirement/law that required people to pay for their own
healthcare... Big Wow... The 10th amendment of the constitution makes that type
of problem something that the state's should fix.... Not the federal government
(like Obamacare) which would in fact, be unconstitutional.
the constitution was written for moral honest GOD WORSHIPING PEOPLE it will
take someone who believes that way and knows how to talk to GOD IN PRAYER to run
this country.Find that someone and we will have a chance if we as a nation turn
to God also.
@boisebluePres. Obama is a Muslim?First, being Muslim
would not disqualify him for the office. There is no religious test for the
presidency (nor should there be).Second, understanding that
Americans generally have some doubts about Muslims and that their religion could
be used against them, there is a simple test that essentially proves Pres. Obama
is not a Muslim (and that he was not born outside the US).He
survived one of the most prolonged primaries EVER against Hillary Clinton and
the Clinton campaigns were famous for a scorched earth policy. If Pres. Obama
truly were a Muslim, Hillary would have used it to bury him and get the
nomination herself. Period.
How hypocritical. How many staunch LDS would vote for an atheist,
agnostic, Buddhist, or Scientologist.Be honest.You dont
want religion to matter when the prejudice is against the LDS but would be very
quick to put forth your own religious test.Whether you like it or
not, religion does matter.Personally, I could vote for Romney, but
the Republican base never will.
Christy | 7:59 p.m. Bahaha!!excellent!You
boiseblue | 6:02 p.m. If the Lord wants Mitt in the White House,
Mitt will be in the White House. It's that simply. I will vote for
him. ANYONE would be better than what we now have. He is a Muslim
and is destroying this country. Why is that not of concern to anyone?=============So, if the Lord wants Mitt in the White
House, then it would stand to reason that the Lord wanted Obama in the White
House, right?And, is Obama destroying the country because he's a
Muslim, or is he a Muslim because he's destroying this country?Just
trying to get all the whackiness straight...
Doug10 | 4:14 p.m.Give Obama his due. When he hired Huntsman as an
overseas specialist he took him off the national radar,There
may still be time for Huntsman but he will have to cue up responses and figure a
way to win in his own party for him to win on a national stage. ================== Agreed!I thought the same thing
when Pres. Obama assigned him to China.Jonny is my age. I
served my LDS Mission under his Father Jon Sr. while he was on his LDS Mission
in Taiwan.We lost a great Govenor here, but gained a great
Ambassador on the "Global" radar.My guess, would be Obama will win
re-election in 2012. V.P. Joe Biden will make a 3 attempt at the
presidency (something he's ALWAYS wanted) by assending the Democratic ticket in
2016.If Hunstman plays it right, he should lay low in 2012 and make
a clean run in 2016, when there will be no incumbent.Sen./V.P. Biden
would be 74vs. Gov./Ambassador Huntsman would be only age 56...
I agree with what "Civil" said. Well put!
Hey ST - do you know anyone you WOULD like to vote for? - - - I well understand
your comment - key is finding someone - anyone -
Whether or not it's accurate, this story is written such that both Jon Hunstman
Jr. and Mitt Romney are two politicians through and through who are - like far
too many politicians today - facade individuals too concerned with popularity
and slippery when it comes to anything integrity. . . void of personal
integrity, and misleading when it comes to communicating the influences in their
lives that direct their decisions. If we are not, or cannot openly be inspired
by God - we are not adequately inspired to lead a country. Especially a country
that carries God's name everywhere on all things that have any level of
legitimacy, or bedrock foundation to them.
roger | 9:33 a.m.In contrast, I really like Huntsman. Of any Mormon
politician on the national scene, Huntsman is the one that most comes across as
somebody with good judgment who is more interested in focusing on the actual
issues rather than pandering to the cultural-warriors. I’d totally vote
for Huntsman.============= Agreed!He'd have
my vote, regardless of what party ticket he ran on.
I don't have a problem voting for a Mormon ... but I would have a problem voting
for Mitt or Jr.
Too bad the world cares so much about his religion, and that he will lower his
standards for them accept him
After reading the day's comments.....There is much more to Mitt than
the presidential looks and 3-4 minute interviews present. Read his book, "No
Apology", to understand (from "the horse's mouth") what his views, positions,
and proposed "fixes" are. There is so much more to him than most folks see (or
care to search out).I am also drawn to Newt Gingrich. MUCH more
politically astute, focuses on the issues, and presents himself admirably in the
toughest arenas -- without contention.As much as I would like to see
a Gingrich/Romney or Romney/Gingrich ticket in a '12 election, I don't think
Romney, Gingrich, or Palin honestly don't care for one another.The
'12 election will be an anti-Obama one. The GOP candidate will win -- whoever
it is. No moderate or independent will vote for Obama.... but, perhaps they
would for Hillary Clinton.
I probably would never make a good politician as I do not like to make a lot of
compromizes especially persal values. I much rather have a good Christian
remain a good Christain than become a corrupt individual. I too am an Indexer
for the last 7 years working on public records and am LDS but will not give up
christian values just to be elected to even a dog catcher. We need very decent
people in all walks of life as they will help America stay strong to its values
as a GOOD country. I appreciate a Good person no matter what their religion
because likely they will treat others as a good people and set the example for
others and work together to build a real good and stable America with top notch
people and families.
If the Lord wants Mitt in the White House, Mitt will be in the White House.
It's that simply. I will vote for him. ANYONE would be
better than what we now have. He is a Muslim and is destroying this country. Why
is that not of concern to anyone?Go Mitt!
To Ana Lena 12:07 PM. Obamacare has already saved lives. I have personal
knowledge of this. God bless President Obama. The guy's got guts unmatched by
any of the people on this blog.
Don't we all wish Michael Savage would run?He is the best one out there!
I happen to be the same faith as Mitt, and I've met him before.I
simply don't get what's so wrong with telling the world straight up what you
believe! - If there's a scarcity in politics these days, it's straight answers -
straight talk. What's less appealing in a candidate is a guy who
would recalibrate & compromise their faith (especially in Jesus Christ) for the
sake of gaining the popular votes. Those same popular votes that have been
derived from an ignorant mass population (the same voters that have written
Obama into our country) and by those same political movement/s that have
abandoned the root principles our country has been made great by. One thing is certain here, and that is that this country was not established
by spineless individuals who weren't willing to take up leadership roles that
may or may not have been popular. With how much adultery to our tax $'s are
going on, we may as well be in a repeat session with King George III. Several
of the founders were protestant King George III was Anglican - telling that the
framers had back bone.
Romney is not a sacred cow folks!He maybe the best we have.All the
others picture me as the devil running the show!
I wasn't under the impression that Huntsman was very active in the first place
whereas Romney is a different story.I think this is the paper's way
of letting us know that unlike Romney, Huntsman is kind of a Jack Mormon.Huntsman does have a great pedigree for LDS people to admire. He'll
probably do favors for the church if asked, but I believe Huntsman is to the LDS
church what John Kennedy was to the Catholic church — church and religion
is much more of occasional tradition than it is an adherence or a practicing
It doesn't matter going round and round how sad it is that people are diverse
and vote accordingly. This is the big weakness in democracy. A really qualified
candidate, like Mitt Romney, could be damned from holding office because a
majority of voters don't like or can't identify with his religious beliefs. That
isn't going to change and the system isn't going to change! I hope Mitt is
'slick enough' to find away to beat that.
Who is the new GOP? Go to the editorial pages in today’s paper
and read the article by Gary Johnson, former Republican governor of New
Mexico.He seems reasonable to me, but on some social issues he may
not fit into the Utah GOP mold. His web page lays out his stands.
It's OK to be an anti-Mormon bigot while the political correctness folks take a
dim view of a biased expression towards other faiths. Until that changes,
Mormons will never get a fair shake when competing on any field, outside the
Intermountain West. When the Evangelicals hijacked the Republican Party in 1994,
the definition of a conservative now included walking softly on issues the
Evangelical lobby deems important. With only 30% of voters registered as
Republicans why does anyone running for a national office have to kiss up to the
wacko religious right? If Mitt would stick to his moderate views, while
maintaining a rigid line on government growth and spending, he would do a heck
of a lot better. Barry Goldwater was labeled the father of the conservative
movement, he was neither religious nor did he feel the need to pander to any
faith based group. He would be spinning in his grave to realize the extent of
the influence such groups yield. Romney will never "get" their vote, he should
be working to lock up the center-right democrats who are more independent than
Give Obama his due. When he hired Huntsman as an overseas specialist he took
him off the national radar, that allowed the GOP to try to re-decorate their
candidates who have already run and been turned down by the American public.
They sent them out hoping for a spike in the polls but lets face it.Huckaby and Romney on the same team did not work before and history will
repeat. Palin is the closest thing to Aesop's fairy tales we have in our
party.GOP's are dying for a fresh face to elect and right now that
person is not there. Running one of the has beens will re-elect Barrack.There may still be time for Huntsman but he will have to cue up
responses and figure a way to win in his own party for him to win on a national
Romney and Palin, What a ticket to certain a republican crash and burn. Hope
I'm not LDS and I don't ever wanna be, But I would vote for Mitt. But I'm voting
for Newt Gingrich who I think will be the man for the Republicans in 2012.
"Just to clear things up. Yes Obama is Muslim. If you don't think that, than you
need to get your head out of the clouds. You need to start paying attention to
all the signs and listen to what is being said. People like you on't see things
for what they are, that is why this country is in the state it is in. If you
think everything is hunky dory then you won't do anything to change it."This is what I expect for people who would vote for Romney: little
attachment to reality.
A Few Points:1. Goatesnotes was right. The extreme left and right
may be the loudest but it is middle/moderate American that swung the last
election and will continue to in the future.2. Presidential
candidates have to appeal to the extremes of their parties to be nominated but
then the more reasonable/moderate you at least appear (Obama) is important in a
general election.3. I believe that both Romney and Huntsman are
moderate/reasonable men but may have to appear less so in primaries. That may
bring the label of flip flopper but it is politics.4. I LIKE that
Huntsman labels himself as a "soft" Mormon. Not only will he perhaps appear less
extreme to the Christian right-wing (willing to back off the more controversial
Mormon ideas) but he may actually appeal to more LDS voters than some would
think. The reality is that many LDS are not harcore LDS and have flexible
testimonies despite the louder rhetoric from hardcore Mormons.5.
Bottom line - we need someone who is genuinely reasonable, moderate, and willing
to work with everyone/compromise in order to actually get something done.
Someone Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton accomplished.
Romney is polling well against Obama. Then again, EVERYONE is polling better
against Obama.Old names (like Romney) mean pre-packaged smear ready to go
another round.The GOP will trot out a couple of fresh faces and see how
they do. Maybe Jindal or Pawlenty. Or a wild card.Romney is done.
Huckabee is done. Gingritch is done. Palin is done.You have to package a
regional candidate and label him a hero. More like American Idol than picking a
real leader.The dems may be stuck with Obama unless he wants to walk away.
He should be easy to beat.
I don't think that this is an issue. I've heard that Mitt Romney has been
less-active for years, ever since he supported abortion rights.
How about this for the GOP in 2012: a Romney/Huntsman Ticket; a Huntsman/Palin
Ticket or Palin/Huntsmam Ticket;How about a Romney/Bush or Bush/Romney Ticket or
Huntsman/Bush; or how about Romney/McCain or McCain/Romney.
Although my screen name may indicate I'm concerned about 'children' only, don't
let that fool you! (However, when you come right down to it, I guess it's the
'children' who will be effected the most from any presidential election in the
long run). It seems to me that when considering "voting" for an
electoral candidate, the absolute most important question is; CAN, AND WILL THEY
RUN OUR COUNTRY BETTER THAN THE OTHER CANDIDATES? I, for one, think we better
take a good hard look at the 'capabilities' more than what church they attend on
Sundays. Our country was founded, "for the people, and by the
people...and, I believe, was originally based on "Freedom of Religion". Isn't
that why our forefathers sailed the ocean to get away from being told "what"
they could worship and what they could not? George Washington was voted the 1st
President not based on his religion, but on his ability to establish the
foundation for "all" the people. Time to throw religion 'out' of
politics and make decisions based on 'who' will do the best job for the United
States of America! Our future children will definitely all be affected.
Mitt's Legacy:Republicans will promote:Gingrich= Family
Values Sleaze Bag.Palin= Half Govenor, Full Time Quitter.Romney= Slick Flip-Flopper.Huckabee= TV Huckster.So,
if you want a Family Values Sleaze Bagin, Quittin, Flip-Floppin, TV Huckster,VOTE BORROW AND SPEND REPUBLICAN.Say hello to endless
pre-emptive wars.Say hello to a continuous re-distribution of money
toward the wealthy.Say hello to corporate welfare.Say
good-bye to good jobs.Say good-bye to Social Security and
Medicare.The Republicans will say it will be different this time.Last time we fooled you. This time you can trust us.U-betch-ya!
No one is going to forget that Romney is a Mormon. Not a very good Mormon if he
doesn't want that fact to be a real part of his life, but still - he would be a
bad choice for the Republican nominee for president in 2012.
Don't expect the religious crazies on the far right to boycot Romney in 2012 as
they did in 2008. Conservatives are smart enough to understand that Mitt has all
the tools for president and he is their best hope of getting rid of the
nightmare of Obama in 2012 and restoring America back to the people.
Both Romney and Huntsman seem like perfectly viable Presidential candidates to
me, and I'm not a Republican or a Mormon. If a candidate is honest and capable,
I couldn't care less what religion he or she practices.
Romney and Huntsman's best chance is to appeal to all of us atheists and
agnostics. The fundamentalists think all of you Mormons are in league with
Satan himself, while we godless heathens think you're not any crazier than the
Am I the only one or is there anyone else who feels like Rom reminds them of a
slick snake oil/used car salesman ? I wouldn't vote for that guy if it was a two
man race between him and Howard Stern. And Howie aint getting the vote either.
Rom is political coward. . . heaping to himself voters having itching ears. All
one has to do if folllow his campaign trail banter from last time. One side of
the fence in Utah another in Georgia etc.
Elect Mitt! Then, he can use his "business experience" to do exactly what he
did in business: buy things cheaply, gut them, sell off any profitable parts,
and then incorporate everything in the Cayman Islands.Y'all can't be
saying "Mitt's religion doesn't matter", then name-call Obama and Rev Wright.
Re: my slcI'm right there with you. I think Jon Huntsman Jr. was an
excellent governor. He's top notch! Why in the world the far right bows to
Palin is beyond me. 5 colleges in 6 years to finally graduate from U. of Idaho
with a journalism degree? Then she quits her job as governor. Are you kidding
me? This is a presidential resume`? Get real! Our country needs
someone with proven business sense. We need someone who can run an economy. We
don't need hunky dory or you betcha or nukular. We need a CEO.
I will vote for a reasonable, rational, compassionate and honest individual,
regardless of their religion, ethnic identity, sex or sexual orientation. Mitt
Romney doesn't fit the mold whereas Jon Huntsman does.
I would vote for Romney over Obama.I think Romney doesn't understand poor
people.How can he know how they feel when he himself is so rich.But
he would be better then most running, probably.
@Blue Chelan56 10:14. If you want better and you feel you deserve better, then
you have to do better. Look in the mirror and get in touch with your problem.
The Democrats do such a better job at appealing to the unthinking masses of
people who just want their beer and their baseball and nothing else matters...If
Mitt can just promise something of that, as Obama did, convince them he will
solve all their problems, he would then have a chance of winning a popular
I would characterize myself as a devout evangelical christian. Rather than a
deterrent to my supporting Governor Romney, his apparent deep personal LDS faith
would increase my likelihood of supporting him, just as his commitment to his
family. Those qualities, and his executive experience in the private sector,
are his two strongest selling points, in my opinion. I don't plan to
support Governor Romney in the 2012 primaries, for other reasons: (1) his
substantial, dramatic changes in policy positions; (2) his entanglement with
Romneycare at a time when the conservative base and most moderates are outraged
by Obamacare; (3) the repeated, underhanded attacks by Governor Romney's core
political operatives on the Republican they considered his most formidable
potential adversary in the 2012 primary (Governor Palin) which began in the
latter weeks of the 2008 campaign, and has continued. But I will support
Governor Romney if he's the Republican nominee, though I think it's likely he
will not be the nominee. And, again, his LDS faith, and the depth of his faith,
are admirable qualities in my view.
Just to clear things up. Yes Obama is Muslim. If you don't think that, than you
need to get your head out of the clouds. You need to start paying attention to
all the signs and listen to what is being said. People like you on't see things
for what they are, that is why this country is in the state it is in. If you
think everything is hunky dory then you won't do anything to change it. Huntsman is an idiot. He doesn't stand for anything. He just exists. Obama is a coward. He has no back bone and no loyalty to the US. He is
the worst leader and should never have been elected.We need a man
who has convictions whatever that might be. Romney could be it if we saw some
fight in him. At least we know that Romney is good man. There are not a lot of
leaders that have good in them or care for the people. We need someone with
passion. Right now Romney is the only one who has what is needed.In
the end we need a leader who loves the USA.
Would I vote for a Mormon?Heck, if my choices were Jon Huntsman Jr.
or the Mitt Romney of 2003-07 Gov. of Massachusetts, sure I would.Both men are / were moderate, thoughtful conservatives. Huntsman with his
dealing of nuclear waste and liquor laws in Utah and Romney with the universal
health care plan and the realization that gay marriage was a legal reality in
Massachusetts..Unfortunately the Romney of those years appears to be
no longer around. Huntsman is however and gaining more respect nationally and
The reason that Romney is unelectable is because he out of touch with the
Americana people. He is big business; but the little Americans are choking in
the economical crises. Mitt already displayed his lack of awareness to the poor
in Massachusetts. He did not facilitate poor fathers with work to pay child
support, while divorced mothers get government grants and can advance their
education. Yet, fathers who can’t find work still have to pay the
guaranteed child support. Mitt did nothing to balance the problem because
rich-capitalists see the poor as being the victims of their own laziness and
Rock said---"Palin is inexperienced and unsofisticated but anyone who thinks she
is dumb has another thing coming."Thank you The Rock---you not only
gave me my best laugh of the morning, you--in one sentence, validated what most
people "thing" about Palin supporters.
If these LDS politicians had any common sense, they would put the interviews in
perspective by asking the interviewers in such questions if they had considered
the other candidates’ faith and religious activity as a pre-requisite for
politics. Such as are only Catholics and Protestants qualified to be
presidents, if not, than why bring religion into the race? Or, would the
interviewer pose the same questions to a Jew or an Atheist? If these LDS
politicians are not putting perspective upfront, they don’t deserve my
vote. That is why I voted for a third runner when Romney ran against
Kennedy in MA. With Romney’s sign on my lawn, I listened to the debate
were Romney displayed being as much of a liberal as Kennedy. Immediately I took
Romney’s sign off my law, and then I voted for a lady who was little
known; but, she stood firm on her believes of correctness. My vote was for
principal rather than for eloquent speaking. Being a flip-flopper is not an LDS
principal; and, people like firmness on principal.
Indiana, I would love to believe what you said about Dobson apologizing to Beck
but this has the feel of an urban legend. Can you tell us more about this? What
is your source?
@ Blue-Would you really enjoy having a terrible GOP ticket? That's
frustrating because I want someone who would do the job well(unlike the current
President). If you are so biased that you won't see that faults within your on
party then you are lost. I would not want to see a Palin Romney ticket either
but because I don't agree with them. Not for sheer entertainment. This is
America we are taking about here, not daytime TV. We need someone who can beat
Barack Obama because he is not taking us on the right track.
Anti Mormon bias is everywhere, even on these Mormon country boards. It is
expected, forecasted, and prophecied. Huntsman wants to take the Kennedy road
and not appear to the public he is a serious about his faith, probably for
political purposes. Hey, for some of you go for Barney Frank....he is just your
type and hype. In Utah, all the bugs jump out of the woodwork to be seen and
heard. It might be a eye opener to read Romneys new book to see what kind of
thinkier he really is. Do It. Be informed not prejudiced.
Mitt who? I'm voting for Newt Gingrich in the next election.
My born-again/tea partying cousin in the South told me during the primaries that
the only thought worse that Obama as President was a Mormon...Yep, she said
that. I guess she got what she deserved.
I don't believe America got what it deserves! I do believe that about 53% of the
voters deserve what they now have. The rest of us deserve better!
We are hiring the next President whoever that will be, to be Commander in Chief,
not Pastor in Chief.Isn't it sad, that this is even an issue?Even sadder the way whole system works, and we the voters, have only
ourselves to blame. We are controlled by perceptions from the media and
political operatives. We take little time to think in depth about issues and the
trade offs between various policies and programs. We think like sheep.Worse, no politician in today's politics can be genuine and unscripted. It's
all about marketing and saying the right things to the right interest groups and
target audiences.What ever happened to telling the truth and doing
the right thing? I recognize this is just boy scout stuff, and no President can
be elected this way, but isn't that sad?What if we actually made
choices based on our impressions of the real person running for office instead
of some focus group monster creation? What if they just said what they really
believe and let us decide whether or not we agree at the ballot box?Oh, I forgot, only a few of us vote in Utah.
Mr. Flip-Flop PhonyThe irony is that Romney would stand a better
chance as a liberal or moderate Republican. He decided liberal would be more
electable in Massachusetts. His ideals promptly shifted to uber-conservative
when it was politically useful. Liberals won't vote for him because
of his flop to the right. The born-again extremist theocrats won't vote for him
because he's mormon.Sorry, Mitt. 'Never happen.
In general, liberals and moderates have no problem voting for a Mormon, as long
as the Mormon in question is otherwise qualified and agrees with their views.
The real bigots in this country are concentrated in the right-wing of the
Republican party. When Romney ran to the right to pursue the
Republican nomination, he was pandering to bigots. Of course the bigots never
accepted him, and of course he alienated the middle.As a moderate
Democrat, Romney leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Were moderates like me who
elected him in Massachusetts just tools? In contrast, I really like
Huntsman. Of any Mormon politician on the national scene, Huntsman is the one
that most comes across as somebody with good judgment who is more interested in
focusing on the actual issues rather than pandering to the cultural-warriors.
I’d totally vote for Huntsman.
We LDS people do not all think alike. It is a mistake to assume that we
will vote as a block for a member of the church. No! My vote will come through
my own political convictions and whether I feel a candidate matches them. Part
of that considers whether a candidate can work with the issues at hand and those
who believe differently than he/she does. There is no 100% right and
wrong in our current political problems. Both parties can claim fault for our
economic problems, but neither takes responsibility. We're in a similar
situation today that the Spaniards were in 1492. Huge national debt, too many
foreign wars, and some inept leadership that has been occurring for several
years, on both sides. Extreme conservatism worries me today as much
as excessive liberalism worried me in the 1960s. Where is rational
thought and civil rhetoric? We're in no position of judging whether
a person is devout enough to represent the Church. We don't need representation
today. It is a world-wide organization. Keep religion out of politics except to
allow it to be practiced.
The religious right are the worst kind of bigots. It is not surprising at all
that they will oppose a Mormon on the grounds of religion alone- regardless of
his political views. I am fairly liberal and non-religious- and have voted for
(and against) some Mormons- though living in Utah, there are few or no
alternatives in most races. Still, the religion is not and should not be an
issue unless the candidate makes it an issue- such as hypocritical preaching
against drinking and getting busted for drunken driving and then claiming that
he shouldn't be required to drive within the lines on the road anyways.
There always comes a troll or a bigot or whatever you want to call them to spoil
a perfectly reasonable conversation... Yes Johnson72, I would vote
for a Mormon. I have and I will again.. the fact is, I have voted for Mormons
several times. Now, as for you saying no one would, won't you tell that to all
my southern family and friends that voted for Mitt in the Primaries??? Some are
Catholic, some are Born Again Christians but all are smart and not bigots
(unlike some) who will vote for a good man.It is my belief that Mitt
has a much better chance this next go around. There are those out there making
every effort and being successful at unifying the two communities, the
Evangelical and the LDS. Personally, I believe that to be mission of Glenn
Beck, a unifier and it is working. Did you even know that Dr. James Dobson has
called Glenn and apologized for the bad behaviour of taking Glenn's book off of
the Focus on the Family website?? I am sure that disappoints some. Not me, I
want to see these two great groups at least be friends.
I have news for you people.As the only Mormon at the company I work for,
here in So. Cal., I have had many, if not most of my friends tell me that they
voted for Romney, in the last election.The Dixie area of the South will
always be the most bigoted. But they will no longer carry the bulk for swinging
the next election.There are far too many more angry Independents, within
the entire nation, who far outweigh Dixieland Evangelicals, that want Mitt. The
polls indicate it. And, I hear it with my own ears, here in my area of the
country.My father's uncle, who was once a congressman during the 1930s,
told my dad, "people ultimately vote their pocketbooks".This time around,
it won't be about Mormonism, but about the economy.And the American people
know that Romney can lead us better in that realm. Don't count Mitt out
Some may think that basing one's vote on "what is a person's religion" is a form
of "profiling". We can't have that, can we! My grandfather would
say, "What's good for the goose is what's good for the gander!"Now,
in my view, if folks can't understand the above, they can't understand "Freedom"
Neither Romney nor Huntsman would get my nod for a Presidential run, not because
of their religious affiliations or preferences, rather because of their track
records in office. They are both too big government-minded, which has been
America's problem on both sides of the aisle. Government is not, and never will
be, the solution to the domestic social and economic issues facing us today.
Those who think government has any reasonable solution has a lemming mentalility
and might end up going over the cliff with those in the lead.
Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are not whats wrong with this country. Its the fact
that they have followers that it is.
It was never smart politically to woo the neo-conservatives in the first
place--Politics and religion are not comfortable bedfellows. We
shouldn't vote for someone simply because of his/her religion.
This is a no win issue, unfortunately. Being a Mormon is not a good reason not
to vote for someone, but the reverse is true. Someone should not vote for
Romney just because he is a Mormon, but that is what Utah did and will do again.
I look at the issues, and consistency, and on both, Romney comes up short for
me. I was an early fan, but when early in the last campaign he ripped on the
French people, where he served his mission, he started losing me, and my
opposition grew when he flip-flopped on the issues.
Listen baby, he's not a foreign born Muslim. Give it a rest.And it
was George who kissed the Saudi prince.
Palin is too much and doesn't wear well. She panders to the crowd and is too
slick. Romney is the same. Their 'packaging' is too scripted and they both
come across as individuals wanting power and fame more than principles.I'm
a conservative and LDS and I think we need genuine leaders. The bashing on both
sides of the isle gets us nowhere.....
I wouldn't vote for a "Mormon" ... but I would vote for Mitt Romney or John
Huntsman because I'd be voting for the person, not their religion.If Harry
Reed ran for president I wouldn't vote for him.It's funny how
religion isn't an issue unless the candidate is a Mormon. Even when he had to
publicly denounce comments made by his church leader, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's
religion was no big deal. But since Romney was Mormon, religion was a big deal
Both are seeking the middle -- Romney running more conservative, Huntsman
running more liberal. It's what you do when you're a politician.
You have to appeal to middle America to get elected. Obama bamboozled a lot of middle America, then after the election has governed
from the far left. Clinton lasted two terms because he "got it."
Obama shows no signs of running to the middle, that's why he will be a one-term
president.The American electorate is composed of 20 percent hardcore
liberals who will never change and 40 percent harcore conservatives who will
never change (Michaal Barone's analysis, and I agree).The key in
elections is to tap into the "moderate middle" 40 percent who can swing
elections either way. That's exactly how Obama got elected -- he appealed to
the middle to win election, then ran to the far left to govern. Big mistake.This has been going on since the beginning of the Republic. Jefferson
hated the party system, and warned against it. He and Adams ignored each other
when Adams was President because of party, though they were good friends.Polarization is reality and will never change. Middle
America tips elections.
I had to laugh at the very concept. How does Mitt put his Mormonism back in the
bag? That ship has sailed.Harry Reid has survived because the GOP attack
machine doesn't work like the democrat one.They have made Romney and Palin
lightning rods. And they will do the same for any other candidate with
conviction.The GOP's worst enemy is itself. Steele runs from the platform
rather than holding it up and selling it as an alternative to tax-and-spend.GWB spent but didn't tax. He didn't follow the platform.Mitt tends to
waffle. What the GOP needs is someone who will proudly carry out the
party platform......on immigration reform...on taxation...on
defense.As long as they continue to court the middle they will be nothing
more than democrat-lite.What's the LDS youth song say? "Stand strong,
even if you have to stand alone."
All that these politicians are showing is that power is more important to them
than their convictions. "But be hold, it is to get gain, to be
praised of men--and ye have set your hearts upon --the vain things of this
I wish that I could vote for a president without knowing his/hers religious
affiliation. I don't care. All I care about is how well the country will be
ran, not if the president attended service on Sunday morning. Let's keep
religions out of politics. They just cloud the issues. And, before anyone says
religion does matter, Romney might be president right know if it didn't. Think
Yes Johnson72, I think we GET your point. I for one believe in Mitt
Romney. I think people are seeing that he is the real deal. I think everyone is
fed up with Obama and his "change". As For Gov Huntsman he seems a
little too inexperienced to run for office. Mitt Romney For 2012.I find it hilarious that you clearly anti Mormons post on an LDS owned
Romney going after the Republican nomination for President is a fools errand.In the current political environment when people like Senator Bennett
cannot even get out of the convention, how does anyone think a man that donated
money to Planned Parenthood, who was for choice before he was against it, who
instituted a government healthcare plan with a mandate that everyone buy
insurance, and who is a religion that most religious right voters think is a
cult can get nominated?He will be attacked from the Tea Party for
his instituting Romneybama care in Massachussetts where ever he goes. He will be attacked from the right for his religion by the likes of
Huckabee.He will not win the nomination with a primary schedule that
goes from Iowa and New Hampster to letting the South (South Carolina, Florida,
Texas, Alabama, Georgia) decide the Republican nominee.He would have
a better chance at being elected if he did the Ross Perot Independent route and
financed the effort to collect signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
This tells me that mainstream "Conservatism" and Mormonism are incompatable. Why
vote conservative if they cannot accept Mormons as Christians?!!time to
consider the alternatives!!
I was reading recently that the GOP is now dominated by a "shaky" alliance of
Tea Partiers and Evangelicals, both somewhat diverging in values/objectives --
one is more Libertarian in views, the other obviously more fundamentalist in its
Bible-based beliefs.Evangelicals are increasingly finding they don't
necessarily hold the same values as Tea Partiers, however, and so as the tide of
the Tea Party continues, Evangelicals may lose their grip on the GOP, allowing
an openly-Mormon candidate greater opportunity.My concern with
Romney and Huntsman, however, is that their electability has centered on their
moderate politics that doesn't align with the Tea Party movement (e.g., Romney's
healthcare initiatives that resemble Obama's and Huntsman's willingness to be a
part of the Obama administration and his pro-renewable energy/belief in climate
science [that flies in the face of GOP's sensibilities]). Personally, I think Huntsman would make a great moderate GOP candidate, but
his perceived "liberal" politics will never get him on the GOP ticket.
Rommeny's "stand on the issues" are kind of "soft".
Any person who's faith might not fit the mold as "Main Stream Christian"
probably won't sway too many voters in the South. It's sad because I think
Romney was the most qualified for the Job when he ran.
I think the first Mormon president will have to be a Democrat. Why? Notice
which states did not vote for Romney--way too many of them are in the (very
Republican) South. And yet Romney was voted in as governor of a very liberal
state. Liberals have no problem with a Mormon Senate Majority Leader. Yet we
all saw the anti-Mormon feelings from Huckabee and his ilk when Romney ran for
president. What does that tell you? Too many people in the South are
anti-Mormon bigots. Most of those people are Republicans. Part of me thinks
Huntsman may start calling himself a Democrat and, if Obama stays in office,
Huntsman may try to replace him in 2016. As a Democrat. Only way a Mormon can
A government full of Democrats would rather have you be a Republican, and a
government full of Republicans would rather have you be a Democrat, than have
you oppose both. It doesn't matter if democrats or republicans are in office.
Neither will benefit the working class.
I believe Mitt would make a great president. He is smart, very experienced,
especially when it comes to the financial arena, and that is what we surely need
right now. One poster said: "When asked, Romney should say, 'I have already
said everything I will say about my faith. My objective is to help America get
back to work and I will not be distracted from that goal.'" I think that is a
good approach to take. I meet people nearly every day who are trying to sell
everything they own, just to pay their bills, or keep their homes. Problem with
that is, at least where I live, there are so many people out of work that there
isn't anyone to BUY the items others are trying to sell.We need a
president with a common sense approach to energy development (oil and gas,
specifically) that will work WITH alternative sources, i.e. solar, "green"
fuels, etc., rather than eliminating a vital source of employment and economic
independence, as the current administration seems to be trying to do. IF BP
didn't destroy the Gulf's economy, Salazar's crazy ideas sure will.
What they should say:"What my religion is" is a different question
than my position on religion."I am a member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some people call us Mormons."I believe
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and Savior of mankind."A tenant of
our Church, from the beginning, is 'We believe in worshiping Almighty God
according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same
privilege, let them worship how, when, or what they may.'""Those are
my beliefs.""As President of the United States, my job is to protect
the rights of all men and women to freedom of conscience, and yes, freedom of
religion."The free exercise of conscience is the most fundamental of
American, indeed, human rights, and is guaranteed in our Constitution. As
President I will defend and support that Constitution, and those rights."
They said a Roman Catholic would never be elected....JFK proved that wrong.
Hopefully we will get another one.
For those who say, "A Mormon will never be president," I say, consider the
following. When Reed Smoot was elected to the Senate after Utah
became a state, there was tremendous opposition to him being seated because of
his LDS/polygamist ties. Finally after years of battle and many hearings, Smoot
was allowed to serve in the Senate.Imagine the reaction you would
have gotten in Smoot's time if you had said, one day, a Mormon would serve as
Senate Majority Leader. Well, GUESS WHAT HAPPENED? Simply put, never
"Would rather have a Mormon than the current Muslim we have in the White House
who goes around bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia among others" That would be,
I think, the Bushes. No American family is so intight with the Saudis (see
Fahrenheit 911). Oh and BTW, Obama is not Muslim, not that I would give a hang
if he were.
Oops sorry.. "vote for a mormon" sorry.
PS or at least do a better job than our current president. I don't see things
getting any better with his version of " change".
Let's see, Both are extremely successful businessmen. I think it would be
refreshing to get a "Mormon Administration" in the White House. It certainly
couldn't hurt especially after 20 years of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
There's no way that a black guy named Hussein with a Muslim/polygamist father
and a wacked out racist minister could ever be elected POTUS. Who would vote for
someone like that?! The same goes for anyone who's a Mormon or a Jew or...anyone
else who doesn't believe EXACTLY what I believe.
bigotry is always lurking here within the hearts of Mormon-hating trolls.
I don't understand what Huntsman is saying when he says those things about his
family. You can be any religion and still have respect for other religions. I'm
not sure that I'd trust Huntsman just for the fact that he is in the grey area.
I just wish that Americans would open their eyes and find the best candidate if
he/she is Mormon or not. We need somebody that will turn back to the
Constitution and return government to the people, but we need people in this
country that care enough for the country to look for the best candidate and take
the time to vote and not just for someone because of religion or race or sex.
One day this might happen if people wake up. If this isn't soon we may find
ourselves without the freedoms that we have enjoyed in the past.
re:Fender BenderOne of the most obvious covenants Mormons make every
time they take the Sacrament (Communion) is that they will always hold in
remembrance the body of Christ and His blood which was shed for the human race
and always remember Him and keep His Commandments and that they will take upon
themselves His name. In other words, they are to stand as witnesses for Christ
at all times and in all places. Which, I would assume, should
include the political arena.Having a great respect for other peoples
and the sincerity of their religious convictions and traditions shouldn't mean
that one can't also believe something specific oneself. I'm not quite sure what
Huntsman believes, but I personally prefer someone who believes something and
holds to its teachings and lives up to its doctrines (always to the best of
one's human ability, which doesn't imply a standard of perfection that could
only be reached, as I believe, with Christ's help). One never knows what to
expect of someone who doesn't have a moral frame based on something beyond
himself and what feels comfortable to him.
I would not for a mormon... would you?, and i think the rest of the country
Unfortunately Romney is viewed as a flip-flopper.His biggest liability is
Romney Care. It just looks too much like Obama Care and it is failing. He has
got to make a major statement on this. If he just said; "We mapped it out and
it worked on paper; however, in practice thing that we never expected to happen
did happen. We have now learned not to do it that way."Oh, and Mr.
Blue, go ahead and under estimate Sarah Palin. Exon did and got their butts
kicked.Palin is inexperienced and unsofisticated but anyone who thinks she
is dumb has another thing coming.Sarah Palin is a major threat to
the left. All the evidence you need on that is to see how much effort the left
puts into destroying her, and they have not come close to succeeding yet.I would like to see her serve one term as a senator. After that she
would be tough to beat.Yup, you betcha!
Forget about being a "Mormon" or a "Monster" or a "Mobster", America simply
does not elect "intelligent" or "competent" people as President anymore.America is more caught up in smooth, articulate and how good good the
first ladies' arms look in a sleeve-dress.Mitt Romney knows more
about the economy in his left side burn than Barack Hussein Obama could ever
know.Hate to say but America is currently getting exactly what she
A gay president would be elected over a Mormon.
I'm not sure what the big deal is, a mormon will NEVER be elected as President.
I love the people in Indexing, on facebook there are a lot that are not LDS and
there are a lot that speak Spanish, and we do not look at our differences. Our conservative people need to stop thinking about how we differ in
religion and think about how we agree, get all those Mormon haters to do
indexing then they would get over it. I know that sounds kind of
strange, but really, I have never seen so much unity between people.
RE: taking5 @ 10:13That's quite the assumption - Huntsman isn't
living his covenants because he said he's not overly religious? How did you
reach that conclusion?
Huntsman is a "soft" Mormon? That's interesting. Regardless of his or Romney's
level of orthodoxy, I think that the best strategy for any Mormon contemplating
national office is to stay silent about it. Religion should be taken off the
table and out of the discussion. It's nobody's business. When asked, Romney
should say, "I have already said everything I will say about my faith. My
objective is to help America get back to work and I will not be distracted from
Don't we all wish Glenn Beck would run?
So what is it that Huntsman is saying? He is sitting the fence? Lives in
the gray area? Either you live the covenants you make or you don't. But I'm not
sure what message he is trying to send by saying I'm not overly religious. I
guess I can say he doesn't overly impress me.
In my craziest fantasies I dream that the 2012 ticket running against President
Obama is Romney & Palin.I say "Romney & Palin" and not
"Romney/Palin" because it's not at all clear that Palin would settle for the VP
nominee - I think she has her sights set on the whole enchilada - the first
female US President. Romney would never dream of accepting the #2
spot.Romney's religion would unsettle the hard-right evangelical
Christian base of the GOP, but Palin would ease their angst and give the
evangelicals a reason to be excited about the ticket. Somewhere, some GOP
strategist is already working this out.As a Democrat, I adore the
idea of having the Silver-Spoon-Fed-Flip-Flopper and The
Great-Empty-Headed-YouBetcha-Quitter heading the GOP ticket. The
shear wacky entertainment value of such a scenario is almost too much to
grasp.Please oh please oh please oh PLEASE! Let it be Romney &
Palin in 2012!