As my Evangelical friends who support Romney say to their co-religionists who object to voting for him on religious grounds: we're electing a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief. It seems that this advice is just as good for Mormons as it is for Evangelicals.

-- Edited by Randy at 13:23, 2007-12-22

Strangely enough, I'm more forgiving of this than other LDSs who have talked to me about it.  Perhaps because I do not expect as much of him as other LDSs.  But had he told it like it is, had he told about God and Christ speaking to Joseph Smith in the grove in Palmyra, NY, he would have been attacked unmercifully by those opposed to his candidacy.  But that comes with the job, both that of a president and that of a missionary.  Until recently I thought the real reason he was running in the first place was to promote the Church and the Gospel, and his candidacy was only the vehicle to accomplish this.  But perhaps his recent acceptance by the Council on Foreign Relations, as evidenced by its printing his article "Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges" in its July/August 2007 issue of "Foreign Affairs", has caused him to focus more on the election than on promoting the Gospel.

For most US Presidents since Wilson, the road to the White House has passed thru the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), I believe the single organization with the most influence in Washington.  Most candidates seem to realize that they must gain acceptance at this citadel of the establishment if they are going to succeed.  Mitt Romney evidently subscribes to this view. And the reigning kingpins at the CFR seem poised to accept him, as evidenced by the publication of his article in Foreign Affairs.

-- Edited by lundbaek at 19:20, 2007-12-22

Cocobeem,

That's what I was thinking too. This is a "gotcha" question pure and simple, just like the "have you stopped beating your wife?" question.

The question bothers me a lot more than the answer. No one of any consequence seriously believes that the LDS church will interfere with the government. Even the most vociferous critics of the church know that the church stays out of politics.

"What if" scenarios are deadly territory for any candidate, and most of them are smart enough to know how to dismiss them. So Mitt Romney might not be as skilled a politician as I had thought.

Mitt Romney has been attacked by the Democratic Party more than any other candidate. The Democrats would rather run against Huckabee, so he's getting a pass at the moment. Surprisingly, the MSM have attacked Huckabee somewhat, although they are obviously rooting for the Democrats, but have less discipline than the party, liking to stir things up as much as they can to increase their bottom line.

Randy

Maybe that is something that is wrong with the system of politics. In our family we ask ourself "what if", and "worse case scenario" questions all the time.

If dad lost his job... could we still afford this house payment on a much reduced salary?

If mom goes in the hospital are there contingency plans to pay for that, so that we don't use the savings set aside to get Son2 on a mission and keep him there?

If Son1 tries to yoyo back home with a tag-along bride do we have enough locks to keep them out??? (that worse case example is just for DaKnife )

Why couldn't Mitt just say: "Frankly there are no scenarios in which my church WOULD ask me to do something that is against my duties as president, because the office should be above those things too... Since I find it HIGHLY unlikely that God would ask something like that of me personally either, let's just stick with what we know, instead of that particular what if."

Here are a few what if questions I would like to hear answered by all the candidates:

What if you had to be alone in an office daily with a young attractive assistant would you consider having an affair? If no, why not?

What if Congress never gets behind your policies as president, how are you going to effect the changes you submit as needing to be made in this country.

What if you are asked by your cabinet to lie to the American people about political strategies, because they are unpopular approaches but you all feel they are the right approach, (not relating to national security) would you do it, or only tell half truths to save your popular standing?

And my all time favorite worst case scenario presidential candidate question:

You are not elected president, what are you going to do as a private citizen to illicit change in this country for the better???

Yeah, I don't have a lot of hopes for the Republicans fielding a good candidate, especially since so many call for the Republicans to field a candidate more liberal than McCain was.

Unfortunately, too few freedom-minded people realize that the Republican Party is dead as far as their interests are conceerned.  I participated in a "Tea Party" in Gilbert, AZ this morning, and noted Republicans trying real hard to rally people to rebuilding the party from the inside.  I set up a booth for promoting the Constitution Party and gathering signatures on a petition to get the CP on the ballot in 2010.  I was overwhelmed at the number of people who just came up and asked to sign the petition.  It was encouraging especially because in AZ the Arizona Republican Assembly, a branch of the Republican Party, is working to change it from the inside.  3 years ago we were in SLC, and I noted that in all Utah over 22,000 voters cast ballots for one or more Constitution Party candidates.  Here in AZ freedom-minded voters are splilt up among the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Arizona Republican Assembly.