RJC in DC–Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney spoke at the Republican Jewish Coalition 2008 Candidates Forum. As always, he was engaging, funny, and deadly serious when necessary.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/10/rjc-in-dc-mitt-romney/
Mitt Romney spoke at the Republican Jewish Coalition 2008 Candidates Forum. As always, he was engaging, funny, and deadly serious when necessary.
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/10/rjc-in-dc-mitt-romney/
Muslims Against Sharia said,
October 19, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Muslims Against Sharia commend Governor Romney for clearly defining the enemy and standing up to Islamist lobby and PC establishment.
Link to video
Jersey McJones said,
October 19, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“Muslims Against Sharia”? “Islamist lobby”? “PC establishment.”?
That’s it. I’ve officially heard everything.
I wrote a piece of advice for Romney the other day. The Salt Lake Tribune editors were urging Romney to take on the issue of his Mormonism head-on with a Kennedy-esque circa 1960 speech. I advised Romney not to do it.
Forgive me for plugging here, but I thought it may be a useful contribution.
http://jerseymcjones.blogspot.com/2007/10/separation-of-church-of-latter-day.html
JMJ
Lily said,
October 19, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Nicely written. I, too, support Mitt Romney - not because he looks perfect, but is more qualified than any of the other candidates. He has executive experience, he is fearless, he gives straight answers, he is pro-life (always was; when Governor of Mass., he was compelled and obligated to uphold that state’s pro-choice laws, period); he is single-minded in wanting to do everything possible to protect the United States from further attacks. What else? Oh yeah - he’s a turnaround genius, taking a losing situation and making it a winner, and profitable. He’s the only man emotionally fit to be President of the United States.
NJ GOP said,
October 19, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Thanks for the info in Mitt. I have liked pretty much everything I’ve heard from him so far, but haven’t yet made up my mind. The pro-life thing doesn’t impact my vote so much, so I could go with Rudy — just not sure yet.
I disagree with your comment that anyone who doesn’t vote for Mitt due to his Mormonism are bigots “end of discussion”. There are books written about how the Mormon agenda is to attain high public office in this country toward the goal of a Mormon-ruled country. “One Nation Under Gods” is one.
I personally don’t have an issue with Mitt’s Mormonism, but if you don’t think the Dems haven’t already started their fear campaign, think again. All it takes is that seed of doubt; and you have to admit the Mormons are still a bit scary to many people.
I recently visited Salt Lake City with an educated, articulate colleague who asked me just before the trip, if any of the people we would be meeting had multiple (unofficial) wives. I thought she was kidding; she wasn’t.
wxwatcher said,
October 19, 2007 at 8:03 pm
NJ GOP.
If you want accurate information about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) then go to a place you can get that information. mormon.org this is a very accurate account of the beliefs of the church. There is NO poligamy in the church today. Yes there was in the past but that was a long time ago. Family is First in the church and Governor Romney is much like many of the Mormons I have met. Although they are not all perfect they certainly have their priorities in the right place.
NJ GOP said,
October 19, 2007 at 9:05 pm
wxwatcher:
I’m pretty “up” on the Mormons and their beliefs. I said there are books written about the Mormon agenda; but I don’t necessarily agree with those theories. In fact, if Mitt were the nominee, I’d definitely vote for him.
My point is that the Dems will use this even if it means demonizing Mormonism to the same level as the KKK, and since so many people (yes, educated people) see them as a bit mysterious and not a mainstream belief system, it won’t take a lot to pull it off.
Hueguenot said,
October 19, 2007 at 10:09 pm
As an evangelical Christian, I have serious disagreement with Mormon beliefs and doctrine as I understand them.
And I have no qualms about voting for a Mormon as president.
In fact, not only would I vote for Mitt or any other Republican in the general election, at this point, I may vote for him in the primary.
Contradictory? I can see why some people might think so, I can understand why some might have a problem with voting for one. I would disagree with them, but I think it would be an oversimplification to label them as bigots.
The Dems may try to demonize Mormonism as mysterious and mainstream, but in so doing might underestimate the extent to which a lot of people would prefer a witch doctor or Druid priest to Hillary
An aside:
“The United Nations has failed. Only free nations should work in a new group.”
Thank you, Mitt. This shows he understands the heart of the incompatibility of the U.S. and the U.N. Our Declaration of Independence brilliantly set forth who we are and what we’re about. In his address at Gettysburg, Lincoln eloquently reaffirmed the same. Any nation for whom these ideas are alien is a nation that we cannot bind ourselves and give up sovereignty to.
Hueguenot said,
October 19, 2007 at 10:12 pm
You know, I really ought to get with that whole proofreading thing.
…In fact, not only would I vote for Mitt (or any other Republican over any Dem) in the general election, at this point, I may vote for him in the primary…
…I can see why some people might think so, I can understand where someone who has a problem voting for a Mormon would be coming from. I would disagree with them, but I think it would be an oversimplification to label them as bigots…
Must be time for bed. ‘Nite, all.
Carole said,
October 19, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Frankly, to not vote for a Presidential candidate based on whether they agree with your faith based issues or not, or because they are not of your faith, is shallow thinking. When it comes to the President of the United States, you want someone that will realistically address the domestic needs of the country - financial, energy, etc - is an experienced executive/manager, understands national security, and can communicate well. I am a devout believer, but have never voted for or against a candidate based on their religious views. It is simply irrelevant. I am also not concerned about social issues in a President, as that is truly not their major calling. Experience as an fiscal executive, the ability to operate as a Commander in Chief, and the ability to manage foreign affairs rank much more highly on my relevance scale.
I have heard good thing about Romney, but never really heard from him. So far, I have not been impressed either way…but I have had little exposure to him. But if anything, his Mormon faith affiliation means he is strong on family values, which is a definite positive in his column, as whatever you may believe, the strength of families is still the most important influence in our society. My more faith based cohorts should take note of this before they rush to judgement based on his spiritual beliefs.
Jettboy said,
October 20, 2007 at 9:51 am
Theology shouldn’t even be on the radar of why you vote for a President. That is, unless it has direct impact on how that leader will lead. Considering all of the Mormon beliefs about the place of the United States as a divine creation for the betterment of the World, that should be a plus rather than a negative. Other than that, there isn’t anything about Mormonism that has any relation to governing other than personality traits.
I have heard vague explanations from people that claim some grand Mormon conspiracy to take over the U.S. and then the World. They never fully explain what that conspiracy is or how it is to be accomplished. Most of the specific explanations that are given are the exact same beliefs as those who are critical. In other words, its like those who criticize over the supposed “conspiracy” are angry because they have competition for something they want themselves.
For instance, I used to believe all the Liberal accusations that the Religious Right were trying to set up a Theocracy rather than Democracy in the United States was hogwash. They wanted a more moral society based on decency, self-control, and family values. Since Romney has gotten into the Presidential race, I am not as sure Theocracy isn’t the goal. Although some high positioned conservative leaders have backed Romney, many have not because he isn’t “Christian” according to how they define the word. That goes doubly so for many rank and file. Often times it comes down to “do you want a Christian for Pres. or not?” That is a literal question. No others need apply. That sounds like theocracy to me. And people are worried about Mormonism?
Romney should be the Conservative choice (as one possible reason) because such support can both repudiate the theocratic inclination of the Religious Right and still remain within the values of the Republican Party.
codgerrumblings said,
October 20, 2007 at 9:53 am
Eric,
Sorry this has nothing to do with your current entry, but I just noticed your request on my Bullfrog-at-Townhall-dot-com to consider linking to this blog of yours. Done. I linked here from Bullfrog. I have a couple of WordPress blogs, but neither is devoted to politics.
Jane, aka Bullfrog
NJ GOP said,
October 20, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I disagree with you Carol that a leader’s faith is irrelevant. In any organization, the “world view” of the leadership impacts everything that happens under that leadership. I once worked for managers who literally ordered me to overcharge my customers, by huge amounts of money — this is a major corporation listed on Nasdaq, not some mom and pop shop. Right now I am working on an investigation of a company (in a different industry altogether) that bilked enormous amounts of money from unsuspecting people. The management is responsible, and they let this occur right under their noses for at least the past 2 years.
Ethical people tend to draw ethical people to their team; and a no tolerance policy toward irregularities may not make your organization bullet-proof, but it sure helps.
If you don’t have a person of solid character then you have nothing. I distinctly remember when Clinton was running in the primaries and the whole infidelity thing broke in the news. My reaction then was that if this guy can’t be faithful to his wife, whom he stood before God and swore to be faithful to, how faithful is he going to be to the voters?
It makes a difference.
Jettboy said,
October 20, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“I disagree with you Carol that a leader’s faith is irrelevant.”
Sorry NJ, everything you said had to do with a moral world view and not primarily a religious one. As such, how “faithful” you are to your wife and how ethical you are with a company has NOTHING to do with religion. Now I know that there are religious people out there who, for whatever reason I cannot understand, believe morality and religion are the same thing. As someone who considers himself highly religious myself, I do not believe theology means morality. Often I have even seen theology used as an excuse to be anything other than moral or ethical.
If I misunderstand what you say, I can only think of one other way to take your discussion. It is true that how a religious organization thinks and behaves can determine predictability of individuals who belong. However, I believe there are very few instances where theology can determine anything other than what a person believes. That is because there can be so many different ways that individuals within the respective religious organizations can interpret their own theology. Frankly, theology is not very practical other than as a determination of the different denominations that exist. More important is how religious people treat others who don’t believe as they do. That is a better indicator of how a person will govern than what they believe about the nature of God and Eternal destiny in most instances.
Jersey McJones said,
October 20, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Speaking as a liberal, I was appalled when three GOP presidential nominees raised their hands in agreement that they did not believe in evolution. One of them was Huckabee. Romney did not. I get the distinct feeling that Romney’s religious epistemology won’t play much into his actual leadership, but I could be wrong. I get the feeling he’ll be more of a corporate shill. Still though, with the SCOTUS being the age it is, the thought of another “strict constructionist conservative” (I can think of at least three things wrong with that title) on the bench is a disturbing prospect. These guys are the most selectively authoritarian, corporatist, intentionally vague and regressive “strick constructionist’s” in the history of the expression.
JMJ
micky2 said,
October 20, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I know Hillary always wears pants suits.
But its not nice to call her a guy.
Carole said,
October 21, 2007 at 6:59 am
Well said, Jettboy.
NJ Gop
Right. The world view. I am not going to vote for a socialist world view, or a tax and spend world view, nor a victim world view. But forgive me. I grew up steeped and scalded up to fatal burns in religion. I am intimately acquainted with a Lutheran minister that thinks our post-his-marriage tryst was not wrong. I don’t think his theology is really impacting his world view, do you?
To find God, I had to leave religion. I have a jaundiced view of someone that make a political point of their religion, and an especially jaundiced view of their opponents who do.
Kindly do not miss the point; that being there are enough issues that actually count more than theology as a deal killer.
NJ GOP said,
October 22, 2007 at 2:47 pm
The statement I was referring to was that a “leader’s faith is irrelevant”. How can faith be completely irrelevant? That’s a little simplistic don’t you think?
If an Islamic Jihadist was running for office, would you say his faith is irrelevant? I don’t think so. No, you have to look at the whole person, and a person’s faith generally is a foundation for his or her world view.
RJC in DC–The Senators & the epilogue « THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS said,
October 26, 2007 at 11:59 am
[...] http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/rjc-in-dc-mitt-romney/ [...]