NRO Decides to follow the Don, endorses Romney

It would appear that the editors at NRO took my advice and have endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination..

I know the rap on Romney being a 'flip-flopper', and to me, that rings a little hollow. I don't think I want a candidate that has never reversed their position on anything and never will. That's not leadership and dedication, that's blind stubbornness. As NRO points out, Romney ran a competent senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, in 1994, where he called for an end to illegal immigration, welfare reform and school choice.

There is the whole question of his position on abortion. I can see it being an evolving issue for some people, and frankly, if the pro-Life wing insists on an absolute position as a litmus test, then they deserve the candidates they're going to get. When the whole issue of human cloning came up, Romney made a principled stand which was unpopular... the majority of Massachussets voters favored cloning and cutting up as many fetuses as doctors could cook up. He also was the point man in attempting to reign in the runaway supreme court of Massachussets that had decided to dictate law by fiat from the bench when same-sex marriage was decided by a panel of judges, not the voters.

As I've said before, I'm not thrilled with him. He has his shortcomings, and he strikes me as a little too slick sometimes. And there's still the cloud of whether he bribed the IOC to come to Salt Lake City or not. But if you dig deep enough, you're going to find similar skeletons on just about any candidate. So, I think I'm dialed in and prepared to vote in next month's primary.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just wrote a few posts about that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It would appear that the editors at NRO took my advice and have endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination..

I know the rap on Romney being a 'flip-flopper', and to me, that rings a little hollow. I don't think I want a candidate that has never reversed their position on anything and never will. That's not leadership and dedication, that's blind stubbornness. As NRO points out, Romney ran a competent senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, in 1994, where he called for an end to illegal immigration, welfare reform and school choice.

There is the whole question of his position on abortion. I can see it being an evolving issue for some people, and frankly, if the pro-Life wing insists on an absolute position as a litmus test, then they deserve the candidates they're going to get. When the whole issue of human cloning came up, Romney made a principled stand which was unpopular... the majority of Massachussets voters favored cloning and cutting up as many fetuses as doctors could cook up. He also was the point man in attempting to reign in the runaway supreme court of Massachussets that had decided to dictate law by fiat from the bench when same-sex marriage was decided by a panel of judges, not the voters.

As I've said before, I'm not thrilled with him. He has his shortcomings, and he strikes me as a little too slick sometimes. And there's still the cloud of whether he bribed the IOC to come to Salt Lake City or not. But if you dig deep enough, you're going to find similar skeletons on just about any candidate. So, I think I'm dialed in and prepared to vote in next month's primary.

---

My take on your take on Romney:
'he strikes me as a little too slick'.
Meh. They are all slick. It comes with the territory. The little match girl doesn't make a career in American politics.

'Squeak! Olympics! Bribes!'
Meh again. I don't know anything about Romney's possible involvement. But who cares. If you want the Olympics, you've also got to woe the IOC member from Zambia at some point. And he won't be impresed by any glitzy powerpoint presentation. He wants candy.

Abortion: I myself of course am in favour of legalised and readily available abortion. You are not. Romney isn't either. Alas. Now if I were in your camp, I wouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Unless you insist on using the ballot box as a religious statement than absolutism will get you nowhere.
I fear, I dread that a slow infringment of women's right to self-determination is a la Romney is a more succesful course of action for the pro-life camp.

I agree with your take on flip-flopping. The accusation is thrown around too quickly, and is used as a negative too eagerly. My instincts tell me to not trust people who never change their opinion. I want flipfloppers. They are flexible.

And thing struck me as peculiar. From your article: 'More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same.'
Do you really want more of 'Bush like foreign policy instincts'? I mean, err...even if you were to agree with the goals of Bush, you've got to admit that he, uh, failed somewhat in the execution?

My take on him: on the whole, Romney strikes me as a competent, relatively integer candidate. However:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Romney. I declare him unfit to govern a free country.

---

I like him better than the rest of the republicans, but thats not saying much. If only Newt would throw his hat in....:no:

Romney's ok. I just keep getting the eerie feeling that he's only talking the talk to win the nomination and will go back to many of his less-than-conservative positions once nominated. If think us Republicans have been burned enough on this sort of thing before that we would do well to be wary.

I still like Thompson best. From what little I've seen of the dreadfully dull Iowa debate, he was the only bright spot in it.

Isn't Romney a Mormon? Those are the people who believe Jesus was American and that there was an extra chapter of the bible written in english and found in 17th century America?

You aren't seriously thinking about electing someone who believes that? Bush may be dumb, but at least he isn't completely away with the fairies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Isn't Romney a Mormon? Those are the people who believe Jesus was American and that there was an extra chapter of the bible written in english and found in 17th century America?

You aren't seriously thinking about electing someone who believes that? Bush may be dumb, but at least he isn't completely away with the fairies.

---

Pindar is a Mormon. Tell me that he isn't the most apt out of all of us to be President.

No religion bashing :stare:

If you have something to say about the political positions of this specific candidate, please feel free to do so - but I expect that you will be able to do so without gratuitously insulting a group of people on this board.

Thanks

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Those are the people who believe Jesus was American and that there was an extra chapter of the bible written in english and found in 17th century America?

---

They believe Jesus was a Jew, but that He also visited ancient America.
The Book of Mormon is not an extra chapter of the Bible, but is a whole record in itself seperate from the Bible.
And it was found in the 19th century not 17th.

hmm.. anything else? No that's it I think.

Exactly. We believe that he ascended into heaven and is (currently) seated to the right of god. Maybe he took a detour on the way up?

Anyway, people who would bar a Mormon from office for intangible beliefs could, by the same logic, bar any religious Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Exactly. We believe that he ascended into heaven and is (currently) seated to the right of god. Maybe he took a detour on the way up?

Anyway, people who would bar a Mormon from office for intangible beliefs could, by the same logic, bar any religious Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.

---

I would but nobody listens to me :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I would but nobody listens to me :laugh4:

---

A number of people do, actually, want that to be the case. That would only allow between 5-10% of the population in the U.S. to run for elected office. Of those 5-10%, how many of those aren't crazies themselves about other things? That probably leaves 5 or 10 people to run the whole country themselves. Doesn't seem feasible to me.

Sorry if I'm flogging the obvious, but there should never be a religious test for office. Oppose Romney for his record, if you like, or for his persona, but for Pete's sake don't oppose him because of the religion he was born into. Mormon beliefs only sound wacky because they're new to you. Think how you would feel about a group that gathers once a week to symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of a man who was tortured to death by Romans.

Personally, I can live with Romney. He seems to have been effective in MA, and he doesn't strike me as an extremist. I'm willing to forgive some of the more outrageous Gah! he's been spouting in the primary ("I'd double Gitmo!") in the hopes that he's just saying what he thinks the base wants to hear.

In other words, I'm of the same opinion as Xiahou, that the man is a closet moderate. For the X-man this means he should not be supported; for me it means the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sorry if I'm flogging the obvious, but there should never be a religious test for office. Oppose Romney for his record, if you like, or for his persona, but for Pete's sake don't oppose him because of the religion he was born into. Mormon beliefs only sound wacky because they're new to you. Think how you would feel about a group that gathers once a week to symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of a man who was tortured to death by Romans.

Personally, I can live with Romney. He seems to have been effective in MA, and he doesn't strike me as an extremist. I'm willing to forgive some of the more outrageous Gah! he's been spouting in the primary ("I'd double Gitmo!") in the hopes that he's just saying what he thinks the base wants to hear.

In other words, I'm of the same opinion as Xiahou, that the man is a closet moderate. For the X-man this means he should not be supported; for me it means the opposite.

---

I like your opinions, Lemur. Even when I disagree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Exactly. We believe that he ascended into heaven and is (currently) seated to the right of god. Maybe he took a detour on the way up?

Anyway, people who would bar a Mormon from office for intangible beliefs could, by the same logic, bar any religious Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.

---

:help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sorry if I'm flogging the obvious, but there should never be a religious test for office. Oppose Romney for his record, if you like, or for his persona, but for Pete's sake don't oppose him because of the religion he was born into. Mormon beliefs only sound wacky because they're new to you. Think how you would feel about a group that gathers once a week to symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of a man who was tortured to death by Romans.

Personally, I can live with Romney. He seems to have been effective in MA, and he doesn't strike me as an extremist. I'm willing to forgive some of the more outrageous Gah! he's been spouting in the primary ("I'd double Gitmo!") in the hopes that he's just saying what he thinks the base wants to hear.

In other words, I'm of the same opinion as Xiahou, that the man is a closet moderate. For the X-man this means he should not be supported; for me it means the opposite.

---

I´m an atheist remember...:laugh4: ...I feel the same way about either group...

it´s just a matter of degree to me....but I must admit the stranger it sounds the more problems I would have in saying "sure I´ll ellect you...and btw here are the keys to the nuclear weapons".

Well exactly. Believing there is an etheric oneness that we all belong to, is merely a version of perception. Believing the universe and everything in it is an expression of a higher power, is a way of seeing things. Believing that god is a personality that sent his son to die for us, is myth for some, valuable lessons for others. Believing that after dying he went to america and wrote down a book in a language not yet spoken, starts to move into other territory. The sort of territory where there are unicorns and pixies. Fine for people to belive whatever, but would you want someone so credulous to have his hands on the button?

"Sir, we've had reports of demon hoardes in Uruguay. Shall we shoot now or wait for confirmation?"

And this is not an attack on any religion but merely a question of whether the credulity of those who put themselves up for office should be scrutinised.

Would you want a president that believed in, say, alien abductions?

I'd prefer one who could read and follow Article II of the Constitution without treating it as inconvenient fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Well exactly. Believing there is an etheric oneness that we all belong to, is merely a version of perception. Believing the universe and everything in it is an expression of a higher power, is a way of seeing things. Believing that god is a personality that sent his son to die for us, is myth for some, valuable lessons for others. Believing that after dying he went to america and wrote down a book in a language not yet spoken, starts to move into other territory. The sort of territory where there are unicorns and pixies. Fine for people to belive whatever, but would you want someone so credulous to have his hands on the button?

"Sir, we've had reports of demon hoardes in Uruguay. Shall we shoot now or wait for confirmation?"

And this is not an attack on any religion but merely a question of whether the credulity of those who put themselves up for office should be scrutinised.

Would you want a president that believed in, say, alien abductions?

---

Article. VI

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


You can feel that way and vote that way, but if the government ever took that opinion it would be unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Believing that after dying he went to america and wrote down a book in a language not yet spoken

---

Also, you need to do more research on Mormon theology if you want to make informed posts on the subject.

Ajax

Didn't Romney do a Kennedy just recently?
That is; talking about his religion and how he would not serve its interests as a president? That he would not be influenced by a single religion?

Kennedy did the same, speaking about his Catholic membership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Also, you need to do more research on Mormon theology if you want to make informed posts on the subject.

Ajax

---

I had a look. Something about Jesus leaving a message on metal plates? Are these still around?

Sounds like someone wanted to create a 'local franchise' of christianity. It happens all through history. People who's religion is previously tied to a foreign place and foreign values, create a new version of that religion based on ideas and people closer to home. Like how pictures of Jesus in Europe and the US have this blond haired blue eyed person (based on images of Zeus) and in South America the image is more latin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Like how pictures of Jesus in Europe and the US have this blond haired blue eyed person (based on images of Zeus) and in South America the image is more latin.

---

Actually, as an American Catholic, I can say I've pretty much never seen a blonde-haired, blue-eyed representation of Jesus whether in church or in Catholic school. A bit tangential, I know, but I wanted to point that out. :shrug:

As for Romney, I don't care what religion he is. Just so he's not shoving it down my throat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

As for Romney, I don't care what religion he is. Just so he's not shoving it down my throat.

---

...I agree with Xiahou. :inquisitive:

Kennedy set a precedent when he told America that he won't bring religion into his government. Sure, it's framed in a nice, polite, political language; but what's he saying to "concerned voters" with anti-Catholic bigotry at the time is what we should all heed: stay the **** out of my personal life.

Religion sadly enough is an issue in American politics. "Devout" candidates tout their "Christian" tendencies and those who don't are often subject to dirty slander tactics from their rivals. And the voters, idiots that they are, actually cared.

So Idaho, I think here in the USA some of us try our best not to pry into our candidates' religious persuasion as long as that candidate isn't a pawn of said religious persuasion. In that regard, criticism of Mr. Romney's Mormonism is rather irrelevant. As long as he's the People's Representative first and a Mormon second, we're fine.

Hypocracy, I cry! All, except for Idaho.

None of you jumping to the defense of Romney here would consider voting for a Wahabist, a Scientologist or a member of the Phred Phelps religion.

Of course the religious affiliation of a candidate is an important issue. It's just that the Americans here know Mormons as well-integrated 'some sort of Christians' that function perfectly well within mainstream America.

I don't mind Mormons. I don't find their beliefs any more silly than thinking that bread and wine magically transforms into flesh and blood by the utterance of some abacadra by a man clad in a two thousand year old dress.

Just don't come knocking at my door on a Saturday morning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Hypocracy, I cry! All, except for Idaho.

None of you jumping to the defense of Romney here would consider voting for a Wahabist, a Scientologist or a member of the Phred Phelps religion.

---

Find me a Wahabist, Scientologist, or member of Phelps church that doesn't try to shove their beliefs down your throat and I'll consider your hypocrisy charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

None of you jumping to the defense of Romney here would consider voting for a Wahabist, a Scientologist or a member of the Phred Phelps religion.

---

I'll take the flame-bait. Wahabbism espouses that the legal and religious should be married at the hip, and yearns for the complete obliteration of any separation between church and state. So yeah, a wahabbist would be a hard sell.

Fred Phelps' religion consists entirely of his own family. He explicitly yearns for the destruction of the United States as our just punishment for tolerating gay people. Another hard sell.

Scientologists? Face it, they're too new, and too unrelated to any known theological system. (Can I get a "Hail Xenu" from da room?)

I can think of some more mainstream religions that would be problematic for the general public. How would Joe America like a Missouri Synod Lutheran? How about a Jehovah's Witness? A Christian Scientist?

How about a Buddhist? Could America ever elect a nice, mellow zazen-sitting President? Even if he was a super-nice, super-capable person? I sorta doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Scientologists? Face it, they're too new, and too unrelated to any known theological system. (Can I get a "Hail Xenu" from da room?)

---

They're also accused of quite a few crimes and are being closely watched by the interior ministry in Germany.
I know that's got nothing to do with the US but it doesn't make them look a lot more trustworthy IMO.