It is very rare for the American people to choose a senator over a governor in the presidential election, so I'm inclined to agree with you that Romney would win against the leading Democratic contenders, senators all.

Democrats need to get behind Richardson if they want to win, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Go Govna, Go Govna.

Tell folks to vote for Mitt y'all.

Here's your Linky You have to click on the Go Advanced button to get the link option.  

-- Edited by DaKnife at 21:32, 2007-12-23

It will be a sad day for America, and especially Latter Day Saints, if Mitt is elected. It makes my heart heavy to see him rise in the polls.

nevermind...

-- Edited by UnderConstruction at 21:21, 2008-01-04

UC, you just have to compare Mitt's own statements and actions to be scared. Earlier he was pro-abortion. Now, in time for the election, he is anti abortion. His own statements support that he was earlier "basically pro-choice", he attended a planned parenthood fundraiser, etc. Earlier he actively solicited the support of homosexuals, now he's "pro traditional marriage". Earlier he was strongly for gun control. Now he is against it. I have read unequivocal statements on his part on each side of these issues.
As far as abortion it has been explained to me how he had a change of heart. That's vaguely possible. But it's just too much to ask for me to believe that, just in time to campaign for president, he has had a large number of changes of heart on a variety of issues, and that his new positions just happen to appeal to the very electorate that he needs if he is to win the primaries.
At least Ron Paul is consistent in his record. Agree with him or not, at least he is not pretending to be something that he's not.
Coco, I think that it would be tough for LDSs if Mitt was elected because of the lack of character that such a large number of flip flops indicates. Also, his recent statement that has been widely interpreted to mean that he does not believe in modern revelation is, in my opinion, just an indicator of things to come. You can argue until you are blue in the face about whether that is actually what he said or meant. But the statement has been widely interpreted that way, and I have already heard some non-mormons discussing about what does it say about the church if such a prominent member doesn't seem to believe in its basic doctrines.

Mitt to WIN!!!!!!!!!!

-- Edited by UnderConstruction at 22:43, 2008-01-04

PollyAnna wrote:

---

"take things into our own hands, if things don't go the right way..."

---

And what about that disturbs you?  Surely not the threat to go third party and/or write in route?  That is no different then any follower of any other candidate.

I think you are correct that Ron would not want someone like you think this person is on his staff. I'm curious what he said that makes you feel he was inferring violence?

The two party system needs to be broken down and opened up through a third party. Will that happen? Someday I believe it will.

Personally I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils in candidates anymore. I have done so in the past and will not continue. If one of the two current parties does not provide a quality candidate I will look third party, if they fail I will write in the prophet from now on. No more voting against candidates, that has been part of our problem for too long in this country. Principled official candidates or none at all.

UnderConstruction wrote:

---

I don't base my knowledge on what others misinterpret/print of what he says or stands for. I have heard him speak for myself, and I know him to be a man of integrity. I have worked for his companies.

You have a right to believe as you wish and to campaign for who you wish. I have the same right, and I disagree that he would be a bad president categorically.

I am praying for this country AND for Mitt to WIN!!!!!!!!!!

---

UC, if I am not understanding Mitt's statements correctly, I would appreciate you clarifying things for me. Let's start with the issue of gun control (not the only issue he has flipped on by any means). First, let's start with his statements in 2002 when he was running for governor. He made many statements such as the following:

We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them

I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.
That would seem pretty clear to me that he was expressing support for gun control. Now let's take a clip from a press release on his website.

On January 12, Governor Mitt Romney toured the National Shooting Sports Foundation's (NSSF) Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) show. Walking the show floor, Governor Romney had the opportunity to talk to many attendees and exhibitors about the importance of protecting constitutional freedoms for responsible sportsmen and gun owners.

The earlier statements seem clear; he expressed support for Massachusett's tough gun control laws. The recent statement seems clear; he is expressing strong support for the constitutional freedom to bear arms. Those are two different positions. Am I misunderstanding in thinking that he earlier supported gun control? Or am I mistaken in believing that he is now expressing support for gun freedoms? Or, in some weird way, does he pull a doublethink and support both positions simultaneously? It seems clear to me that he has changed positions, and so it puzzles me that you attribute this to a simple misunderstanding.
If this was the only issue on which he had flipped in time for this election, I could dismiss that as his views changing over time. But there are so many issues that he has flipped on that I just can't take him seriously. There are documented actions and statements to support that he has flipped on the other issues I named, plus others.
If it is so easy to misunderstand him on such a plethora of issues, that is a liability for his campaign.

I just recently found out that I have a "close" (as in one of those cliche association things 'that almost makes us related' things ) association to Mitt...

The Stake President who set me apart as a full-time missionary served as a councilor in the Stake Presidency with Mitt when Mitt was also a councilor in the Stake Presidency in Boston...

Having had a fair amount of interaction with that man as a teen and young adult (and he had a big influence for good in Central Ohio within the community in helping bring the Church forward in the eyes of the public and the growth to what it is now), I would venture to say that some of his mentoring came from Mitt and his association with him, which just adds more reason for me to stand behind Mitt Romney as wise choice for the Republican nomination.

I know that for many of you, that doesn't make a hoot of difference, but for me it does. I think that if one can be a good, wise, and righteous leader in the Church, one will in most cases take that to any leadership duty or responsibility elsewhere. Integrity is the key.

The brethren don't want to blow it for him.


You state this as fact, but it is conjecture. The church does not officially support Mitt. They do not unofficially support him. They are extremely careful to make no statement that can either be seen to support him or come out against him. You can infer support from that if you want to. But I don't.
In fact, that is my single biggest pet peeve about LDS supporters of Mitt; the implication that he is the official candidate of the LDS church, and that it is therefore ok to use church property, membership lists, etc in their support of him. Further, that if you are LDS, you should support him because he is also LDS. By that logic all LDS who can should vote for Harry Reid. That logic just doesn't work for me.

There are murderes in the Book of Mormon who were baptized, too.

arbilad wrote:

---

The brethren don't want to blow it for him.


In fact, that is my single biggest pet peeve about LDS supporters of Mitt; the implication that he is the official candidate of the LDS church, and that it is therefore ok to use church property, membership lists, etc in their support of him.

---

Maybe you have that impression in your area, but it sure doesn't happen here. The only ones who seem to even talk about politics here are the ones who are supporting the candidate you support... So, they give that same impression you claim you feel about Mitt's relationship to LDS supporters...

That is true, Organist. And I would love an LDS president, just so long as his political principles were more or less in line with what I believe.

A prominent novelist who participated physically in a murder as an adolescent and did time for it is now an active LDS and occasional contributor to Meridian Magazine. 

Back to Mitt Romney.  One would think by now he would realize that it is the responsibility of Congress to delcare war, not the President with or without lawyers.
His answer to a question about the president seeking authorization from Congress to attack Iran was: "You sit down with your attorneys and [they] tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress."  WRONG!  In serious and inexcusable violations of the US Constitution, the Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to make that decision.  When Romney was asked if he needed authorization from Congress, Mr. Romney replied:  "You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do."   WRONG AGAIN !  The US Congress and only the US Congress has the responsibility to declare war under the US Constitution, not the president, with or without input from lawyers.  The idea of going and talking to attorneys shows either ignorance of or disdain for the US Constutiton.  As Ron Paul told him then and there, he needs to just open up the Constitution and read it?!!  The president is not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress.    

While governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney proposed and initiated a state mandatory health care program that deprives citizens of their agency in deciding whether or not to participate. This program requires use of tax money taken from citizens to pay for health care of others.  Ezra Taft Benson used to call that "legalized plunder."  Mandatory insurance is particularly unjust to those who don't want it, such as those who use alternative medicine,  because it forces them to pay for the medical needs of others.  (Ref. http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html , "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson)

Mitt Romney has clearly not befriended the US Constitution.  I could chalk that up to ignorance for some candidates, but an active LDS aspiring to Congress or the presidency should know that.  

To me, he showed cowardice when he said "I don't recall God speaking to me. I don't know that he has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others."  He misinformed a lot of people about what we LDSs know and what has contributed so greatly to our understanding of God and Christ.  I think he owes an apology and explanation for that mistake.  

At least Ron Paul has the guts to tell it like it is and stick to his principles as he has done against powerful opposition for almost 20 years in Congress.  He has never pandered to any unconstitutional or immoral interest.  
 
 

  

lund, with all due respect, Romney answered correctly in the context of how the questions were asked.

The questioners were specifically asking him things in such a manner as to be able to allow others to come back and accuse him of things he did not say.

If he were to answer the way you and Dr. Paul wanted him to answer, then the accusation would be that he does not support the president or that he sides with liberals.

He did not state that the decision is left up to lawyers. He stated that insofar as what the Bush administration has done IN CONJUNCTION with Congress concerning Iraq and the war on terror, if there was any legality to be discussed, his response would be made after consulting with experts in the field of law.

Romney did not state he would make a decision to go to war based on the advice of lawyers. He stated that he would weigh the options available to him as Chief Executive after consulting with those who understood the law. That does not equate to bypassing Congress.

As to the comment about cowardice in his response to how he answered about God speaking to him, there is also a counsel by The Lord given about casting pearls before swine... I think he answered that appropriately for the context of which it was asked. He did not answer falsely, for he did state "or perhaps some others". He simply did not elaborate and specify.

-- Edited by alabamabelle at 23:24, 2008-01-04

-- Edited by alabamabelle at 23:25, 2008-01-04

Mahonri wrote:

---

yes you are misunderstanding him.

he knew that in MA with all of the dems in control there wasn't anything he could do.

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him"

Mitt supports our constitutional right to bear arms.

-- Edited by Mahonri at 09:00, 2007-12-31

---

 In 2004 he could have vetoed Massachusett's permanent ban an assault weapons, which is a definition based entirely on the appearance of the weapon. Instead, he signed it. I haven't seen anything that says that he signed it under protest, or against his better judgment, or whatever. He has also in the past described himself as "not being in line with the NRA".

So I'm still not buying that he's always been pro-gun.

Does one have to tow the line of the NRA to be pro-gun?

So, in other words, what you are implying is that if one does not agree with the NRA then they are likely not pro-gun (at least in the pro-gun lobby definition), right?

If one doesn't agree with the Sierra Club, that means they aren't concerned about environmental issues, right? If one doesn't go sign up with the Minuteman Project and patrol the border as a private citizen, they are not concerned about immigration control, right?

See, defining what is and isn't (as well as who is and isn't) pro-gun by the same lobby that is promoting it's version of pro-gun legislation (or lack thereof) is the same thing as so many of the self-appointed groups who claim to be stewards of the correct interpretation of The Constitution. IMHO.

Yes, Mitt is anti-gun at heart, and his vote record proves it.  Many people think Massachusetts people are anti-gun, which is not so.  Many or most of their politicians in Eastern MA have been and have foisted off ant-gun legislation, but the population in general have already once voted to prevent handguns from being totally prohibited to private citizens.
 

-- Edited by lundbaek at 14:45, 2007-12-31

Ok I know this is a derailment, but I've been meaning to tell you Randy... my daughter loves your avatar. (She has a thing for wolves, coyotes anything in that mammal persuasion).
She even has a screen saver with a wolf on it.