Redstate

If we could see this side of him more and less of his calculated/polished side then he would be much more appealing.

"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain

How far into this clip is the off-the-record stuff?

I can spare 5 minutes out of my day to check this out.

But if it's 20 minutes into the clip, I don't have the time or the patience to wait for that.

Romney/Thompson 2008

Use the slider at the bottom to move to the end, say 10 minutes left. Mitt takes off his head phones when it gets pretty heated.

By the way, like Mitt or not, the interviewer was a first class jerk! I think the other campaigns should shun this idiot interviewer for the duration.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

For everyone's edification: Mitt does NOT take off his headphones in anger. He takes them off because they went to a break.

I listened to the off-air exchange for 3 minutes and got bored. There was no anger, no vitriol. Mitt seemed to be having the kind of conversation that I have all the time with people who want to talk about what my Church says about politics (virtually nothing; with a few rare exceptions).

I don't think that most non-Latter-day Saints understand how apolitical the Church is. You can be pro-choice. You can be pro-life. You can oppose civil unions. You can support them.

But you have to be careful about what you say and in what context you say it. Obviously, if you teach at BYU, you shouldn't advocate abortion. You can say that it should remain legal. But you cannot say that the Church has no right to punish those who violate its rules on abortion.

Romney/Thompson 2008

...but disagree a little.

When people attack Mitt's faith as an issue for a political campaign they come across as bigoted. I don't like Mitt's faith choice, but it doesn't strike me a as germane to Mitt's ability to lead the country. So far we agree. When people attack Mitt it makes the attackers look bad.

However, when Mitt's supporters feel they need to go out and defend Mitt's faith they ALSO come across as ignorant. Why? Because they:

1) Are only going to find support amongst a tiny few people who already agree, and

2) Turn off the majority of people who already disagree but might otherwise appreciate the candidate.

Mitt, to his credit, has been above the fray. Mitt and his campaign have done an excellent job of leaving his faith out of the debate. Mitt's opponents have also been respectful. The dummies in my opinion are some of Mitt's supporters who think they need to bring up Mitt's faith, or think they need to defend it when no one is attacking it. Here at RS a few people have hurt Mitt by bringing up his faith and feeling it needs to be explained.

So I might disagree a little about Mitt doing an informal Sunday school kind of thing. I think Mitt is doing a great job by steering clear of the issue.

In my book whichever side uses the issue will lose. If Mitt brings it up he loses the support of people who are ignoring his religion to support him. If detractors bring it up they come across as attacking Mitt's religion instead of his record. Ted Kennedy helped Mitt greatly when he attacked Mormonism, and Mitt surged in polling during that senate race when Ted made some foolish comments.

I mean this as respectfuly as I can, but an example is this story by Jbonham. In my opinion it does little to accentuate Romney's positive political record, and does everything to bring up the one thing that most non-Mormons find slightly distubing about Romney. Better to focus on defending Romney's character, record as a Gov, and record as a corporate turn-around artist. Those are his positives. If you go on the defensive, defend the flip flops made just in the last few years (abortion, Brady bill, semi-auto weapons ban, McCain-Feingold, gay rights, etc). But for crying out loud stay away from the whole Mormon issue.

It just seems ironic to me that some of Rommney's supporters think that the LDS Church should be off limits, but they bring it up over and over again. They should take a cue from Romney and his campaign and knock it off. They are only hurting their own candidate.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of
lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

hoosierteacher

I think you got me wrong there cowboy. I don't support Mitt, and think he's wrong on many many issues and is too slick by half. He might make a a good VP as he has excellent business skills and would help a chief executive to go after some of the more screwed up parts of the Federal Government.

I agree with you to a point on the issue of Mitt's faith. It is a matter of objection for some people, and the easy cry of bigotry on the part of his supporters while not acknowledging that the LDS faith has it's critics is just asking for more of the same.

If I was advising Mitt, I'd tell him to take the issue of his faith head on, but not in a normal campaign setting. Setting aside time in his schedule to talk exclusively about matters of faith in a respectful and honest manner with all comers who are willing to be respectful in turn, would be a means of showing leadership and a way of showing respect to the pluralistic nature of our country. Outside of time set aside by Mitt to talk about religious matters, there should really be no place for a discussion of faith in the more base arena of politics is wrong.

I think Governor Huckabee in a recent debate pretty well set the standard. He's not reluctant or hesitant about his faith, but separates the discussion of his faith from the discussion of public policy.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

virgin birth and the Resurrection?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

game

Sure, Hucakbee can if he chooses to pick a time and place for those who are interested in his faith to witness to them about his faith. I'm quite sure that as an ordained Baptist minister he would relish the opportunity to share his faith, in short share the good news. That time and place would and should be separate from his campaign for a political office befitting the respect and dignity matters of faith should be treated with.

Faith is faith, politics is politics. Conversations about both have their place and should be treated with respect by all.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

a theological discussion in the context of his presidential campaign, any more than JFK did. Romney may need to repeat his many Kennedyesque statements in a more promonent venue next year, but he must not get into defending the confession of the LDS church.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

game,

You are making a moral point, based on a historical contextual point from darn near 50 years ago, JFK. I'm old enough to barely remember the Kennedy/Nixon race and how it played out in the deep South, and it was not all that pretty. That historical point you hang your hat on did not do real well actually and JFK got elected in '60 in as much thanks to his father's mob connections stuffing ballot boxes than some mass acceptance of JFK's faith in the deep South.

I'm probably badly saying that the best way to deal with bigotry is to do so head on, but on ground that you choose. After all, never thought it would be a real smart thing for a civil rights worker to show up at a Klan rally seeking donations for the cause.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

I don't think there bigotry against Mormons in the South is significant; most Southerners admire the morals and values of Mormons; admire their well behaved children; and can be pursuaded to support Mitt the more they get to know him and his history. I don't claim he can do better than Fred, but I predict he will do no worse than 2nd in the Southern primaries overall.

Southerners know too mnay baptists in the pew that run for office and abandon their values, so they will be pleasantly delighted with Romney.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Here's the line that irked me and chafed me:

"I don't like Mitt's faith choice"

1. I can not imagine myself saying "I don't like [someone]'s religion". How would you like it if I said, "I don't like hoosierteacher's religion"? How is that not a bigoted thing to say? Does Mr. Romney's religion do anything harmful to anyone?

You could just as easily have said, "I am happy with the church that I go to and I have no interest in switching to Mr. Romney's church."

That is far different from saying, "I don't like Mitt's faith..."

2. "faith choice"? Is that how you characterize it? Your religion is a choice? You don't think that some people stick with the religion that their families have been members of for generations?

Could the Jews have avoided being massacred by the Nazi's simply by promising not to "choose" Judaism in the future?

While you could characterize it as a "choice" if you like, I think that is deceptive. Just say, "I hate Latter-day Saints," and be done with it.

You, sir, are a bigot.

Romney/Thompson 2008

also don't "like" the confession of the LDS Church. Given that Mitt personally considers Jesus to be his personal savior, I like his faith choice and dislike any choice other than same since I think Jesus is the way to eternal life. But I would vote for a non-beliver that favors policies I favor over a beliver that doesn't. Bigotry requires that one improperly discriminate against another based on an irrational connection between the discrimination and characteristic one dislikes.

HT is not a bigot.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

What that dummy isn't getting is that I can disagree with Romney's religious choice (as I do) and still write a comment sticking up for Romney.

Or perhaps in dummy's world I should be forced to not only tolerate Romney's religion, but accept it as well. Huh? There are always knee jerk, defensive fools who can't read past one line of a comment to gather the context.

Thanks for watching my back.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

church confesses. amen

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Wait, I thought going after someone for their religion is a hate crime?! Oh, only if they are Muslim.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

It may sound judgmental on my part. But I question the sincerity of people like Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

To me, they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to say, "Look at me, I'm a Christian." But at the same time, that view does not affect the kinds of advocacy they support. Hillary Clinton affiliated with very anti-Christian forces in the late 60's and early 70's. Jimmy Carter has stopped affiliating with the Southern Baptist congregations because they have a traditional view about women in the clergy. Barack Obama is a coke-snorter who used to go to a Muslim elementary school. He never cared about religion until he needed the support of church-going blacks for his political campaigns. For a black politician in Illinois, missing church is like missing a campaign stop. So when B.O. says he "found God", my interpretation is that he "found a way to generate good will in the black community that doesn't cost any money and comes at a time of day that he doesn't have any other commitments.

Name one sacrifice that Jimmy, Hillary, or Barack ever made for their faith. I can't name even one for any of those three.

Romney/Thompson 2008

hooser

In this case that approach will not work. The LDS faith is not one without controversy and pretending that controversy does not exist, in effect not directly dealing with that controversy does do his campaign a bit of good.

Hey, but that's just my view, and others that I respect here on RS have over views and Mitt is not emailing me for my views...so what the heck do I know.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

I agree that running from controversy is not a generaly good idea. And yes, we both have our opinions on this (Mitt isn't calling me either).

But there are controversies and there are controversies. In this case, I advocate avoidence because it is unseeming to come across as prostelyzing (which is how defending a specific denomination or sect would come across).

For example, if an Indian or Muslim or Jew (Leiberman comes closest historicaly) ever ran for the US presidency I think many Americans would overlook theological differences if they felt the candidate had a moral compass because of a faith in a God. I believe Mormonism is cultic, but I also think Mitt has a genuine faith in his religion and thus has a sincere and strong moral compass.

If an atheist ever ran he'd have a more difficult time than any religion (or cult for that matter) because I think most Americans are more turned off by a disbelief in God than a different (or even false) concept of a God.

That Romney believes in a loving God is enough for me. I don't like his flip flops, and so don't like him in the primaries. I also don't like his choice of faith. But that's irrelevant. I respect that he has faith. If he leaves it at that I think most people will respect it.

As far as your talk with GC I have to agree with GC. Yes, a babtist minister might talk with an individual about his faith and it would be appropriate. But turn it into an unofficial repsectful talk about denomination and he loses his crideibilty with many Americans.

I think Pat Robertson turned off a lot of Christians by being the "Christian" candidate. While I prefer a Christian in the whitehouse, I'd much prefer a candidate who is Christian than one who makes a point of it. To me, having informal meetings about discussing your faith crosses the line.

You do realize that the press would be all over a candidate (Mormon or orthodox [small case "o"] Christian) who was holding small, informal, even off camera discussions.

Perhaps my best argument is that you might conceed that a member of the media would kill or die to get a hidden microphone in to such a meeting. When some of the discussions of Mormon thoeology and practices (in the candidates own words) hit the press the feeding frenzy would be tragic.

In the end though our disagreement is a minor point. For whatever it is worth I think Romney is doing the right thing keeping a lid on everything without coming across as hiding from the issue.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

Mitt's gotta tackle this issue before ankle-biting sycophants like Sam Brownback bury him with it.

But I also liked your point about how Bush characterized himself as a Christian without going into how Methodism is the best Christian denomination.

Mitt's got a tough job right now. If he says, "Look, I'm just a regular Christian, like everyone else," then the Evangelicals will go nuts. I am a Mormon and I am a Christian. I'm as Christian as Bush, Falwell, Dobson, Pat Robertson, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee.

Do I disagree with some of the practices of Brownback's church? Sure. But in this day and age, we need to find common ground before the atheists, agnostics, and anti-Christians finish rolling us up in the culture war.

We've got to roll them up.

This begins with unity of all religious people: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and everyone else. If they believe in God AND THAT BELIEF AFFECTS HOW THEY MAKE CHOICES, then they are on our side.

Romney/Thompson 2008

I don't think that the camera was hidden. What wasn't well publicized is the fact that the camera was ON.

I think that Mitt looked really good during this exchange.

I'm tired of the "aw shucks" Mitt. I want to see more of the Mitt who grapples with ankle-biting pundits who try to give him advice on something they know nothing about.

Romney/Thompson 2008

and has adopted one of the time-tested techniques systematically employed by the Clinton Damage Control Team.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

clinches it. You think we should tell pro-lfers to shove it and surrender in Iraq too?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson