Hey, folks, this is Matt Neistein. I sit on the Trib’s editorial board, and we’re setting up a thread for each candidate as we prepare to release our endorsements for the state primary online tomorrow (that’s Friday, Jan. 11, for the calendar-challenged) at 3 p.m. So make sure you swing back through tomorrow afternoon to check those out, and let us know what you think in here.
Romney “looks presidential”, has an excellent background (being a governor is the best launching point for the presidency), and has a record of achievement. He’s definitely a top contender, though I don’t think he’d accept the veep nod.
Which John McCain staff person wrote your editorial position regarding Mitt Romney? Just kidding of course, but that is what it sounds like. Your editorial board obviously preferred McCain among the Republicans and then went about the task of rationalizing why you would not endorse Romney. Your argument is replete with the same political canards we hear repeated often by the pundits and the opponents, and thoroughly unencumbered by the facts.
I have no problem with a major metropolitan newspaper endorsing a candidate such as John McCain, but why stoop to dissing his opponents with untruths, half-truths, and political rhetoric that even a modicum of research would/could prove false. With a little effort, you would discover that Mitt Romney is an amazing person who has excelled in every aspect of his life--as a husband, father, and grandfather; as successful corporate executive in the private sector; as a leader in his church; as a manager of one the most successful Olympics ever; and as a conservative political leader in a very liberal state. None of this would be possible if the notions you reported about him were true. He is a man of solid character, strong and consistent values, and high integrity. He is one of the most well educated and intelligent people to ever run for President of the United States. He is definitely not the person you described in your disgraceful editorial--doesn’t it cause you some concern?
Fortunately, many of us who support Mitt Romney, have done our research and know what a fine president he would make. And it is also fortunate that the good people of our state will have an opportunity to learn about him in the coming weeks from more reliable sources than The Tampa Tribune.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your editorial.
Romney has a lot of admirable qualities worthy of being a competent elected official.
But he’d likely have great trouble honestly explaining his ties to the leadership of the Mormon church in Salt Lake City.
Faithful LDS are mandated to follow without question the direction of the Mormon leadership.
American voters are not likely to be comfortable with giving vicarious control of federal affairs over to the LDS Church.
Romney would likely do both Republicans and the citizens of Massachusetts a favor by giving up a hopeless bid for the POTUS and instead run for and be elected to the U.S. Senate
Unfortunately, if he wishes to unseat John Kerry, he’s too late to run against him this fall.
However, Ted Kennedy is up for re-election in Nov 2012. Good spot for Republicans to wrest a bit of control from a longtime Democrat nemesis.
It’s a specious argument--the same argument I remember being directed at JFK 47 years ago. I wonder if such an argument was leveled when the first Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Methodist ran for any elected office. If it were an actual concern, why wasn’t it a factor when Romney ran for and won the Governorship of Massachusetts? If the LDS Church ran that state for four years, they did a pretty good job.
At this very early point in the primary season, Romney has the most votes and the most delegates. After today, his lead in delegates will have increased. He is the only Republican candidate who has defeated all of the other Republicans. It’s a five person contest for the Republican nomination making it quite possible that it won’t get settled until the convention next summer.
Each of the candidates will win some winner-take-all primaries, and Giuliani will most likely have the most with New York and New Jersey in his camp, but Romney will probably win Massachusetts, Vermont, and Utah. It is not a sure thing that McCain will win Arizona, but Huckabee will certainly win Arkansas, and Thompson will likely win Tennessee. This will not be settled for awhile unless some of these contestants drop out due to a lack of money and organization. It’s the delegates that count, not the victories.
If this were a medal contest, then after Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire, Romney has a gold and two silvers with an excellent chance for a second gold today. McCain has a gold, two bronze, and a likely silver today. Huckabee has one gold and a bronze, with another bronze possible today. Thompson tied for the bronze in Iowa and is hoping for something in South Carolina and Nevada on Saturday. Giuliani has no medals yet.
If you add the delegates already earned plus those likely today and in the winner-take-all primaries, then the order going into the states with pure Republican primaries where the delegates will be spilt is:
It takes 1231 delegates to win the nomination in the Republican Party. There are a lot of primaries where the delegate count will be split. The ending of this story has not been written, but don’t write off Mitt Romney, he has the best organization in all of the states, the most money, and the most prayers--not just from members of the LDS Church.
Everyone should watch Romney’s Faith in American speech. It is available at C-SPAN.
It’s a specious argument--the same argument I remember being directed at JFK 47 years ago. I wonder if such an argument was leveled when the first Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Methodist ran for any elected office. If it were an actual concern, why wasn’t it a factor when Romney ran for and won the Governorship of Massachusetts? If the LDS Church ran that state for four years, they did a pretty good job.
SH: John F Kennedy, as a Catholic, did not take blood oaths to follow without question the direction of the Pope in Rome. Romney did take such blood oaths to follow without question the direction of whoever is at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. (currently Gordon Hinckley)
None of the other denominations you list have an individual in their ranks who the collective views as being God’s number one spiritual conduit to the human race, so it’s moot how voters might examine those religions in the context which I raised.
It would seem that at least 50% (the percentage who voted for MR) of MA voters were not overtly swayed by Romney’s sacred allegiance to the LDS prophet and he did in fact get elected, though he (perhaps) sensibly decided not to try his luck again in 2006.
If American voters are equally unblinking towards electing Romney in spite of his personal oaths to the LDS Church, he may then have a legitimate chance at winning the Republican nomination this coming summer.
I’m an Episcopalian, like John McCain. I don’t profess to be an expert on the LDS Church, but I have known many Mormons throughout my life, including some who were in the church leadership in positions such as Mitt Romney held. None of them waited for Gordon Hinckley (or his predecessor) to tell them what to do each day. Good grief, Harry Reid is a Mormon and it is rather obvious to me that he isn’t taking the same direction as Mitt Romney!
As for blood oaths, an anthropologist or a martian might describe the communion and recitation of a creed each Sunday morning by millions of Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc., as a “blood oath.” But there is a difference in jurisdiction. Gordon Hinkley may dictate how to be a Mormon, but he doesn’t tell his faithful followers how to be a senator, a governor, or President of the United States. By the way, Mitt Romney has answered this absurd charge on several occasions and then expanded on it in his Faith in America speech. You should watch it.
By the way, Ann Romney was raised an Episcopalian. She and Mitt met at Cranbrook School in Michigan where they both graduated. It is an Episcopalian private school outside of the jurisdiction of Gordon Hinckley, or his predecessor.
I’m an Episcopalian, like John McCain. I don’t profess to be an expert on the LDS Church, but I have known many Mormons throughout my life, including some who were in the church leadership in positions such as Mitt Romney held. None of them waited for Gordon Hinckley (or his predecessor) to tell them what to do each day. Good grief, Harry Reid is a Mormon and it is rather obvious to me that he isn’t taking the same direction as Mitt Romney!
As for blood oaths, an anthropologist or a martian might describe the communion and recitation of a creed each Sunday morning by millions of Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc., as a “blood oath.” But there is a difference in jurisdiction. Gordon Hinkley may dictate how to be a Mormon, but he doesn’t tell his faithful followers how to be a senator, a governor, or President of the United States. By the way, Mitt Romney has answered this absurd charge on several occasions and then expanded on it in his Faith in America speech. You should watch it.
By the way, Ann Romney was raised an Episcopalian. She and Mitt met at Cranbrook School in Michigan where they both graduated. It is an Episcopalian private school outside of the jurisdiction of Gordon Hinckley, or his predecessor.
Thanks for the personal insight.
I was born into the LDS Church, raised within it by an active mother and even married in an LDS Temple ceremony in 1985 before later renouncing my membership in 1995.
The mantras and ceremonial behaviors you cite for other faiths are not on par with the literal blood oaths faithful LDS commit to each time they participate in a Temple ceremony. (which presumably Romney, a faithful LDS does at least several times a year).
Breaking these commitments made in LDS temple ceremonies literally consigns the offender to spirtitual execution. Their soul would be eternally separated from God the Father, according to LDS doctrine.
It’s not so much a matter of “Gordon Hinckley” covertly directing all of the day to day decisions of an LDS elected official.
It’s more a matter that any faithful LDS cannot make decisions contrary to LDS doctrine without per LDS doctrine) endangering their eternal souls.
Romney will never be able to “reevalutate” a policy position based on fresh testimony or new, more accurate science or other information if that possible change of thinking conflicts with Salt Lake City LDS leadership.
As noted earlier, if American voters are cool with having a POTUS who has made such literal eternal oaths to obey the counsel of the LDS prophet, then they should by all means not hesitate to vote for Romney in his campaign for POTUS.
In many respects he’s not a lot differnt from many other ardent Christians with regard to attitudes about women’s rights, gay rights, etc.
The distinction is that he’s taken it to a literal higher level via the oaths to which he has sworn in LDS temple ceremonies.
Buyer beware. If you are fully aware of Romney’s spiritual commitments and are cool, vote for him.
But if you think his religious beliefs are just “another version of Christianity”, think carefully before pulling that lever.
Wow, the same link as in the Obama thread! I guess Clem is hoping some mud will stick.
Nope.. Just pointing out the media bias. As the Boston Globe put it today, Obama’s affiliation with a church with questionable motives earns his campaign an occassional “hiccup.”
Meanwhile, Romney and Huckabee are subjected to a continuous barrage of projectile vomiting over their religious convictions.
Wow, the same link as in the Obama thread! I guess Clem is hoping some mud will stick.
Nope.. Just pointing out the media bias. As the Boston Globe put it today, Obama’s affiliation with a church with questionable motives earns his campaign an occassional “hiccup.”
Meanwhile, Romney and Huckabee are subjected to a continuous barrage of projectile vomiting over their religious convictions.
Is there bias? Of course there is. But the bias is a bias towards selling the stories that’ll have the most appeal. Romney’s and Hucakbee’s religious affiliations affect much wider groups of voters than Obama’s, hence that’s why Obama’s gets short shrift, in my view (I used to be a columnist).
Why is there such a deafening silence from most candidates
on the urgent issue of illegal aliens? There is no ‘Hispanic’
vote because only Americans are allowed to vote here, and
they became Americans by speaking English. Secure our
borders!
Why is there such a deafening silence from most candidates
on the urgent issue of illegal aliens? There is no ‘Hispanic’
vote because only Americans are allowed to vote here, and
they became Americans by speaking English. Secure our
borders!
SH: Depending on location there is upwards of 19% of the current legal United States population that is Hispanic.
I’m an Episcopalian, like John McCain. I don’t profess to be an expert on the LDS Church, but I have known many Mormons throughout my life, including some who were in the church leadership in positions such as Mitt Romney held. None of them waited for Gordon Hinckley (or his predecessor) to tell them what to do each day. Good grief, Harry Reid is a Mormon and it is rather obvious to me that he isn’t taking the same direction as Mitt Romney!
As for blood oaths, an anthropologist or a martian might describe the communion and recitation of a creed each Sunday morning by millions of Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc., as a “blood oath.” But there is a difference in jurisdiction. Gordon Hinkley may dictate how to be a Mormon, but he doesn’t tell his faithful followers how to be a senator, a governor, or President of the United States. By the way, Mitt Romney has answered this absurd charge on several occasions and then expanded on it in his Faith in America speech. You should watch it.
By the way, Ann Romney was raised an Episcopalian. She and Mitt met at Cranbrook School in Michigan where they both graduated. It is an Episcopalian private school outside of the jurisdiction of Gordon Hinckley, or his predecessor.
Thanks for the personal insight.
I was born into the LDS Church, raised within it by an active mother and even married in an LDS Temple ceremony in 1985 before later renouncing my membership in 1995.
The mantras and ceremonial behaviors you cite for other faiths are not on par with the literal blood oaths faithful LDS commit to each time they participate in a Temple ceremony. (which presumably Romney, a faithful LDS does at least several times a year).
Breaking these commitments made in LDS temple ceremonies literally consigns the offender to spirtitual execution. Their soul would be eternally separated from God the Father, according to LDS doctrine.
It’s not so much a matter of “Gordon Hinckley” covertly directing all of the day to day decisions of an LDS elected official.
It’s more a matter that any faithful LDS cannot make decisions contrary to LDS doctrine without per LDS doctrine) endangering their eternal souls.
Romney will never be able to “reevalutate” a policy position based on fresh testimony or new, more accurate science or other information if that possible change of thinking conflicts with Salt Lake City LDS leadership.
As noted earlier, if American voters are cool with having a POTUS who has made such literal eternal oaths to obey the counsel of the LDS prophet, then they should by all means not hesitate to vote for Romney in his campaign for POTUS.
In many respects he’s not a lot differnt from many other ardent Christians with regard to attitudes about women’s rights, gay rights, etc.
The distinction is that he’s taken it to a literal higher level via the oaths to which he has sworn in LDS temple ceremonies.
Buyer beware. If you are fully aware of Romney’s spiritual commitments and are cool, vote for him.
But if you think his religious beliefs are just “another version of Christianity”, think carefully before pulling that lever.
Wow. Thanks Steve. Always nice to get data from a original source.
