I heard part of his speech on the radio.  I like how he emphasized families.

Let's say he becomes president--how does he go to the temple once a month with all those secret service people?  Even if some are LDS and can go inside with him, won't they have to turn off their earpiece radios and such?

Someone could write a good novel about it--radical ex-mormon forges a temple recommend, gets a weapon inside by carring it in a ubiquitous blue vinyl temple bag, poses as a veil worker and assassinates the Prez.  Secret service couldn't intervene because they're all chillin at the visitors center watching "Legacy" in Viet-namese.

You writing this down, Ray?

No, I didn't go see him.  I was actually wondering about what it would have been like last evening, but I assume that the announcement event would be reserved for folks who have made sizeable donations or other significant contributions and the media.

I am but a peon in the real world.    Was getting ready for the winter storm that hit us yesterday and last night anyway...

But, I did recognize the location where the picture was taken within the musuem.  I've been there several times!  If I was correct, the Oscar Mayer Weiner Mobile exhibit (and cafe) is (was) about 100 yards to the right of the picture. 

Lundbaek    

Romney is now where he needs to be when it comes to important values.

Remember, Romney Rocks!!!

that or

!!!MITT HAPPENS!!!

One thing that Mitt has done is put Mormonism all over the airwaves and newspapers.

As they say, any publicity is good publicity.

Let's win the primaries and keep the missionaries busy!

Ray... I know what you mean.  Would it make some Mormons uncomfortable because they would have to open their mouths?

Well it should be interesting.  I'm just praying that he has an icecubes chance in Phoenix of making it.

Related Links
More from Inside Washington
Compiled by the U.S. News library staff

1. Willard Mitt Romney was born in March 1947. (He stopped using
Willard, the name of his father's friend J. Willard Marriott,
founder of the hotel chain, in kindergarten. Mitt was the name
of his father's cousin, a football player for the Chicago Bears
in the 1920s.) His father, George, was chairman and president of
the American Motors Corp. and governor of Michigan from 1963 to
1969. His mother, Lenore, began a career in the theater arts
before marrying George. She ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970. He
has one brother and two sisters.

2. Mitt Romney met his wife, Ann Davies, at a party in 1965; he
was 18, she was 15. He began college at Stanford University and
took a job as a chauffeur on campus so he could secretly fly
home on the weekends to see her.

3. Romney left school in 1966 for a 21/2-year mission in France
on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In
June 1968, a Citroen he was driving with five passengers was hit
head-on by a drunken driver and he was thrown from the vehicle.
One passenger died. A policeman believed Romney was dead and
wrote "il est mort" on his passport. Only later was he found to
be alive by Sargent Shriver, a friend of his father and the U.S.
ambassador to France at the time.

4. Mitt and Ann married on March 21, 1969--four months after he
returned from his mission. Future President Gerald Ford was a
guest at their wedding. Ann was attending college at Brigham
Young University and Mitt transferred there, eventually
graduating first in his class in 1971 with a degree in English
and a 3.97 GPA. Their first son, Taggart, was born on their
first anniversary.

5. The young couple moved to Boston so Mitt could attend Harvard
Law School. He was also accepted into a joint M.B.A. program at
Harvard Business School. Their second son, Matthew, was born and
in 1975 he graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and in
the top 5 percent of his class at HBS.

6. He first worked at Boston Consulting Group, then as a
management consultant at Bain & Co., where he became a vice
president in 1978. By then he and Ann had three more
sons--Joshua, Benjamin, and Craig. Mitt was asked to head Bain
Capital, a venture capital company, in 1984. It was there that
he became a millionaire.

7. Romney was a leader in the Mormon church while living in
Belmont, Mass. He was bishop of the Cambridge congregation, then
bishop of Belmont, and in 1986 became president of the
Boston-area "stake," similar to a diocese.

8. He spent $3 million of his own money in an unsuccessful race
to unseat Edward Kennedy from the U.S. Senate in 1994.

9. He became president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing
Committee in February 1999 and turned around a scandal-plagued
Winter Olympics. Romney donated $1 million to the games and
refused to take a salary unless the committee finished in the
black. When the Olympics ended successfully in February 2002,
people viewed him in a new light as a rising politician.

10. Romney was elected the 70th governor of Massachusetts in
2002. He decided not to run for re-election and instead formed a
presidential exploratory committee in January 2007. One of his
favorite presidents is Dwight Eisenhower, and he asked his
grandchildren to call him "Ike."

Sources:

Atlantic Monthly

Associated Press

Boston Globe

C-SPAN

New York Times 

Perhaps he wanted his grandchildren to call Pres. Eisenhower "Ike".  It could be read either way.  Weird nonetheless.

____________________________________________________________________

Check this out. 

McCain is a jerk!

He is an idiot.  I've been in AZ for 20 years and I've never voted for him.  I even voted for a De*^$&!t once.

It's still early, but quarterly reports come out in April and when folks see how well  Mitt has been doing at fundraising, more support will be coming his way.  He has had to start buying TV time in Iowa and South Carolina.  Our group had a phone conversation with his son Josh tonight.  Mitt is running hard in New Hampshire.

By next year at this time, we'll know who the nominees from both parties are.  If Algore enters the race it will make it interesting on the Dem side.  If McCain continues to shoot himself in the foot, more conservative Republicans will join Mitt's team.

In 11 days my wife and I will be seeing Mitt personally when he comes to AZ.  There are some folks here who are going out on a limb to support Mitt over McCain, but they are doing it because they know that Mitt is our only true hope. 

I heard last night on the news that Mitt didn't fare too well in a Republican Straw Pole in the Carolinas.  The opposition went right after him being mormon in fliers and mailings it the concensus was that the strategy worked.  I know it is just a straw pole but these things can be a good indication of where the party members are tending to lean towards for the upcoming primary.

rayb wrote:

---

I guess if Mitt doesn't win in the Carolinas we can all blame the mormons there for not being good enough neighbors. :)

This could be a good way to decide which mormons in whichi states are going to hell or not being good enough missionaries. :P

--Ray

---

Funny Ray, in seriousness though, it showed me that the anti-mormon hit pieces in the mail worked.  That's what really bothers me.  A poll ran locally also scared me.  More people were likely to vote for a Muslim, woman, black person, etc than a mormon.  Less than 40% of people in our area said they would even consider voting for a mormon for president and our area has a lot of church members, a temple, and is pretty conservative.  I think Mitt should seriously consider waiting until the next election cycle and look at raising his reputation and exposure in the market.  Until they look at him and see something other than Mormon Candidate, he doesn't have a prayer.

Earlier, I thought I heard that Huntsman Sr. contributed a bundle to Romney's campaign.  But yessterday and today I heard on the TV news that Utah Governor Huntsman Jr. favours McCain, who was in SLC today. 

The above referenced article "Why I Support Mitt Romney" by David M. Bresnahan is in sharp contrast to a June 18, 2002 piece written by the same David Bresnahan, which should still be accessable at http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/06_June/061802_mn_romney.shtml
These excerpts should be noteworthy to all voters.

"Some have called him a moderate, or middle-of-the road politician. In reality Romney has practiced a "cover-the-road" method of winning support from everyone by giving answers that please many on both sides of the issues."

"Romney was candid about the methods he and his staff used to shape the views and thinking of the people, but he was defeated by his own faux pas and by the master manipulator, Kennedy. When he finished his presentation he excused himself from lunch and departed. The next speaker was Elder Henry B. Eyring of the LDS Church Twelve Apostles.

"Eyring made it clear, in a very nice way, that the methods described by Romney were not the methods to be used by the LDS Church Olympic volunteers gathered in the room. He wanted to be sure those present were not thinking that Romney was delivering a message on how the Church should manipulate the media of the world."

"Romney has been carefully trying to dance around the many statements he has made regarding the issues of abortion and homosexual leaders of the Boy Scouts. His comments have often changed based on the audience of the moment.

What he cannot escape are the responses he made on those issues at an October 25, 1994 candidate debate between himself and Kennedy. He was clear and to the point. His answers were surprising, considering that he has been a prominent leader within the LDS Church in Massachusetts and he has been on the Board of Directors of the Boy Scouts of America.

"Romney said that he is in favor of homosexual leaders for the Boy Scouts, and he believes every woman should have a right to chose whether or not to have an abortion."

"Tovia Smith of Boston University radio station WBUR asked: "Mr. Romney, you say you're a moderate on social issues. One who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks, and for gays. In fact you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy. You also sit on the national executive board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy, and if not have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?"

"I have let my views be known," said Romney. "I have been to one board meeting now of the Boy Scouts of America board (as of 1994). I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
"It was that last statement that would come back to haunt him time and time again. Romney believes that "all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

"That is a view which is in direct opposition to his church and to the BSA national policy. Romney showed his colors during the Olympics when he made it clear that the Boy Scouts would not be a part of the Olympics as they had traditionally been throughout modern Olympic history. There would be no Scouts in uniform for the public or press to see. Romney wanted no complaints from the homosexual community or the world press.

"In every past Olympics, regardless of host country, the local Scouts have participated in some way -- in uniform. In fact, some of the past Olympics even used Scouts in uniform to present the awards to the Olympians."

"Romney was very careful to eliminate the Boy Scouts from view (during the Utah Winter Olympic Games). He appeased them by permitting Scouts to perform litter cleanup of Olympic sites before the Games began, and to help with putting up and taking down of security fences. All out of view of the public and the media. He also very cleverly made sure the homosexual activist community were invited to participate in the Olympics in a meaningful way that they would brag about."

It doesn't.

The Huntsman familiy is trying to cover all of their bases.

Huntsman Sr. is in the Mitt camp at present.

Gov. Huntsman is in the McCain camp. 

Word is... the Gov. may suggest Mitt as the VP if McCan wins.

McCain has already told folks here in AZ that because of his age he is only a one term president....if Mitt were the VP it would put him in the driver's seat for 2012.

To the above posted question "Why does the boy scout / gay thing even matter?",  to me it demonstrates contempt for the Boy Scouts of America because of their rejection of gay leaders as well as approval of gay activities, it puts Scouts in the kind of danger that was evidenced some 15 years ago at Camp Geronimo in Arizona, where a scout leader molested some boys, and it conflicts with Church policy Re. gays' participation in scouting.  Romney has demonstrated to me that to get elected he is capable of compromising those very principles I expect him to maintain.
 
Modern-day prophets and apostles have advised us, have warned us even, to elect wise and good people to powerful positions. We've been warned to learn for ourselves the principles of the proper role of government and to learn and meet our civic responsibilities. Thus, we have no excuse for being ignorant.  With some effort on our part we should be able to see through Romney's positions, for he is revealing himself to those with an experienced eye.

Another reason it is important that homosexuals are not allowed to openly be accepted in leadership positions in the Boy Scouts is that it is one more step in which the homosexual agenda is advanced.  They seek approval within certain organizations, like the military and Boy Scouts, and in that way attain legitimacy, and then insist on further advances.

Thank you. There was something bothering me about the whole criticism, and I just couldn't put my finger on it. That was it.

And the criminal aspect is what the whole two-deep leadership policy is about. (Well, at least in part. That whole Youth Protection training...)

Euphrasie wrote:

---

Thank you. There was something bothering me about the whole criticism, and I just couldn't put my finger on it. That was it.

And the criminal aspect is what the whole two-deep leadership policy is about. (Well, at least in part. That whole Youth Protection training...)

---

 While they may have a two-deep leadership policy, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about homosexual scout leaders. Would you want two male adult leaders sleeping in the same cabin as your girls at Girls' Camp? Of course not. It's a simple question of prudence. If there is even a question of a problem, avoid it as best you can. The vast majority of priesthood holders would not take advantage of a situation where they are sleeping in a cabin with young girls. But you would avoid the situation entirely because of that small percentage chance that something would happen.

And I am very uncomfortable with a politician who changes what he's saying to suit the audience who's listening. That says to me that the person has no true convictions, and is willing to say what's necessary to get into power. I don't feel it's necessary to compromise your convictions just to get political position, and I don't think that a person who does so would do a good job in the position.

If only a person who sells his principles to get power can become president, then we are truly in a dire situation.

I think way too much is being made about his off-the-cuff comment.  Did you folks know a lot of this drivel is being spun by the evangelical nutjobs who don't want to see a Mormon win the nomination?  It is spin.

I still get spam (despite hitting the remove from mail list AND reporting it as spam to my corporate security) from a nut ("Dr." Jerry Zandstra, who is some minister and an advisor to ) here in Michigan who makes it a point to rail on Romney because the man gave personal opinions over the years that have not agreed with Zandstra's make all abortions illegal .  And this nut is actually in Sen. Brownback's camp in some quasi official role (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/former-miss-america-among-brownbacks.html)...

"I have let my views be known," said Romney. "I have been to one board meeting now of the Boy Scouts of America board (as of 1994). I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

That was 12 - 13 flippin' years ago, people!  That was before all the court cases that went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately defended the BSA's right to freedom of association.  He was on the executive advisory board for the BSA.  What is too easily dismissed is the sentence he said first, that he supports the BSA's policy and right to determine who it chooses to associate with, despite his personal opinion at the time.  Let's keep it in context.  He was not speaking in behalf of the BSA, but stating a personal opinion in the light of trying to beat the incumbent King Man Teddy Kennedy.  Until just a couple years ago, there was no law of the land that soundly defended the BSA's policy.  It was not until the US Supreme Court ruled in the BSA's favor that their right to freedom of association that the issue was put to rest (hopefully once and for all).

Has Romney said anything since 1994 to specifically indicate he feels the BSA policy is wrong?  I haven't heard / read of it.  He didn't even say the BSA was wrong back then...

I find it interesting that those opposed to Mr. Romney look back to well over a decade to find "dirt" that isn't really even dirt (since it is taken out of context) on a candidate.  Okay, maybe they don't agree with his views or his policies or politics.  Fine.  But look at the integrity of the individual.  If they really have a problem with opinions he expressed in the past, great.  If they are members of the church and don't feel his statements were in line with the gospel principles, then can't they at least celebrate that he is honest about having changed some of those views with time and experience?  Or is the gospel concept of change not applicable to politicians?  When was changing or altering of viewpoint an indication of lack of integrity?  I am more concerned about politicians who put spin out as their position, and they are a dime a dozen.

I'm not firmly in his camp, but the one thing that I have found is he shines out far beyond the other candidates in upholding of the law of the land.  He promotes rule of law as opposed to wresting of law to placate certain minorities or special interests.  He promotes making changes to the law through the proper channels.  A lot (and I'm generalizing here) of the special interests, whether it is on the right or the left, do not want to play the game by the rules.  Hence, activist judges.  Hence, hidden riders deep inside bills that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue that has gotten thrown in.  Hence, so many politicians who are so ineffective at doing anything but argue and point fingers.

Okay, I'll shut up now.  I kept my mouth shut as long as I could on this, but the argument over where he stands because of something he said 12 years ago is a red herring, a cheap one at that, in my opinion.

I think the reason he did not veto it was because by so doing, he would have been guilty of doing the same thing the court had done... unilaterally making a decision / law without allowing the voters to have a say.  A veto can be overriden by the legislature in most cases, and the same court could have made an issue of him overstepping the executive offices bounds.  They had indicated the issue was about the state constitution, so told the "law making body" to correct it, and unfortunately told them to do it in x amount of time.  In this respect, the court overstepped it's bounds.  Informing the legislature of the need to create a law is one thing, but telling them to do it within a certain time frame is not in their pervue.  The legislature should have taken it to the people to vote on.  They didn't.  Problem here is that there didn't seem to be a check or balance available on the judiciary.

From what I have understood, Romney's action was based on the fundamental desire to make it something to be decided by popular referendum and vote, not by the decision of a branch of the government.  Unfortunately, debate was squelched and the law was effectively wrested in the short term.  Romney was looking at the long term solution.

That is how I see it, at least.

Again, what was the great evil he didn't refuse? Could you be more specific? I know he was quite outspoken about the behavior of his state's supreme court... but I would expect him to respect the laws of his state as well... 

Are you suggesting a politician must fall upon their own sword in order to remain "pure" to some ideological principle. I would think that with a whole country as divided ideaologically as ours, no such politician could really exist long if they lived your standards... unless they wanted to be completely dismissible and marginalized--like say some third party candidate who only serves to sew the seeds of discord in the nation by refusing to work for compromise and cooperation. 

--Ray

So how does Romney explain his position?

Btw, this brings up an interesting lesson taught in the Book of Mormon about what you do if you're in popular politics and the representatives in it vote for wickedness... A number of Book of Mormon prophets were put in similarly appearing ethically questionable situations in which the wickedness of the people or the men in the government left prophets at odds with their authority. Maybe I'll do a little digging one of these days and see if there's not some further parallels.

Whatever the case, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...

--Ray

Cat, I see nothing in any of those articles explaining why Romney was "forced" to not veto the legislation. The last article simply makes a bold, unsupported claim that he had no veto power in this situation. Why did he have no veto power in this situation? What made this legislation so different from other legislation over which he does have veto power? People say that he was under the thumbscrew of the court. How? I admit I haven't read the Massachusetts constitution. Does it provide the supreme court with the power to force legislation and deny the executive branch their powers? I sort of doubt it. Which means that this was a pure, unadulterated power grab on the part of their supreme court. Why should the governor be bound by powers that the supreme court create for themselves? If the court mandated that the LDS church ordain gay bishops, would the governor be legally obligated to imlement that? If you let the court create for themselves such a dictatorial right, where does it end?
And Mahonri, Romney knows the right words, but it's more useful to pay attention to a politician's actions. According to this article he even passed out flyers at gay pride events expressing his support of them. As governor, he supported adoption rights for homosexuals. His actions speak louder than his words. Sure, saying the courts forced him to do it is a convenient excuse for not having vetoed the legislation when he had the chance, but it rings hollow when in other venues he so avidly supports homosexuals.
Show me where in the Massachusetts constitution it allows the supreme court to deny the governor veto rights, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, simply asserting it doesn't make it so.

I think it has to do with this argument.

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/airing_the_dirty_laundry.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

Mitt Romney tried as hard as he could to get the constitutional amendment passed, used an archaic law to keep same-sex marriage from spreading, as well as continually speaking out against it. Perhaps he could have done more, but how much of what we wanted him to do, do we know the consequences of?

Judge Roy Moore, refused to remove the 10 commandments from the court property, and claimed that he had no reason to follow the higher courts decision, because he felt it was unconstitutional. What happened? He was quickly removed from office, and hasn't had influence since. Sadly it would have been better to comply with the higher courts decision, and try to reverse it by other means.