Video: Hugh Hewitt talks Romney, Mormonism on H&C
posted at 11:48 pm on March 12, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Politics and religion, in one interview.
Bryan adds: Resident evangelical here. I doubt Romney’s Mormonism is much of an issue with evangelicals. It’s certainly not an issue with me. I want to know what he’ll do on the issues.
And that is all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
But what about online poker, that and decriminalizing pot is all that matters to me!
Sincerely,
The True, Authentic Voice of Conservatism
Bill C on March 13, 2007 at 12:17 AM
If Jeb Bush is on the ticket, we can’t go after Hillary as being another clinton in the bush/clinton/bush line…the whole, we need a change thing.
jp on March 13, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Yes, we have been infiltrated…….. don’t look out your windows…
Bill C and jp, all we really want are more naked pictures of Helen Thomas……. want to join us?
PinkyBigglesworth on March 13, 2007 at 12:28 AM
I think Colmes’ whole perfomance proves Hewitt’s point and it also matches what I had said before about the media coverage out of MA on Romney. It is the liberals trying to convince primary voters that Romney is not the man for them. They are more scared of him then Mcain or Juliani. Hannity has reasonable skepticism, it is Colmes trying to do a rediculous hit job.
Resolute on March 13, 2007 at 1:03 AM
If Romney gets the nod from the Republicans, he’ll definitely get the Evangelical vote because of who he’s running against irrespective of being a Mormon. It’s a POLITICAL office, not a religious one.
Mojave Mark on March 13, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Leftists don’t care about “the Mormon thing”, but they figure that Evangelicals and Orthodox Christians do, so they care about enough to get Red on Red in-fighting going on. For proof on how effective this is, see any other thread on Mormonism on this very site.
Decoy256 on March 13, 2007 at 1:52 AM
>Leftists don’t care about “the Mormon thing”
I would say that the only “Mormon thing” that the leftists care about is that Mormons are the most staunchly conservative group in the country, and regardless of a Mormon-In-Name-Only like Harry Reid, or some other Mormon politicians that are less than conservative, Mormons on the whole are always going to vote against liberalism. (Hey, we actually believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired, and that socialism/communism and other Godless collectivist schemes are satanic. That pretty much means that Mormonism and modern liberalism are 100% incompatible.)
If you want to get a good idea of how Mormons feel about leftists, read some of the writing of former Secretary of Agriculture (under Eisenhower) Ezra Taft Benson. No political correct blathering here!
Doghouse on March 13, 2007 at 2:15 AM
Thank you Bryan, from the Mormons here. We shall see who is the first to take the liberals’ bait on this particular thread…
WasatchMan on March 13, 2007 at 2:40 AM
If you are not a Mormon there is one very important thing that you must know about Mormons and their sacred holy places. DO NOT do a training run on the Temple Square grounds in Salt Lake City.
A few years ago I did a training run one night from near the University of Utah to downtown Salt Lake and back during Christmas time. Previously on similar routes I would just make the loop along the outer wall of Temple Square, but this time I decided to cut through the Temple grounds so I could check out all the spectacular Christmas lights. Within seconds people were quietly coming up to me saying that “you can’t run through Temple Square”. Of course I immediately stopped.
From having the opportunity to know quite a number Mormons over the years I have a very favorable opinion of them and their faith. I’ve found them to be very dedicated in their faith, family and country. Plus, being a person (for common sense reasons) who has never smoked, drank or done drugs I can attend fun parties when I’m in Utah where no one else is smoking, drinking or doing drugs. You can actually remember all the fun you had afterwards. How amazing is that!
olympian2008 on March 13, 2007 at 5:01 AM
Hugh Hewitt’s got another book already? This guy’s a media machine!
Tom Shakely on March 13, 2007 at 5:55 AM
I think Mitt’s biggest problem is that he caved on the Ann issue. He should have stood up and supported the message while disavowing the words she used.
One of the basic tenets of the LDS faith has to do with rendering “unto Ceasar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s”.
His religion has ZERO to do with his qualifications to be an elected official. ZERO.
csdeven on March 13, 2007 at 6:14 AM
We call them BBQs.
Coronagold on March 13, 2007 at 7:28 AM
Once again we see that any Christian based religion is fair game, something to put under the microscope, something to be suspicious of. Suppose the candidate was Muslim, not Mormon. Now, replay Colmes interview in your mind. He would have started out being enraged that anyone even wrote a book with the title “A Muslim in the White House”. After all, religion doesn’t matter, right Alan?
Babs on March 13, 2007 at 8:35 AM
I usually can’t stand Colmes (it’s the googly eyes, I think) but he did well here. I’m a firm believer in changing your belief system over time, but Dems (far leftie websites excluded) won’t be so stupid as to argue his Mormon religion as the chief reason not to vote for him; it’s his “adaption” to sounding liberal for Mass voters then becoming oh so sincere in his Conservative credentials.
Don’t get me wrong, I actually like the guy, but it’s a valid point of argument.
Big shocker: HH saying FDR was a great President.
SouthernDem on March 13, 2007 at 9:12 AM
A member of my family said once that he won’t vote for a Mormon because he thinks they are a heretical cult. He wouldn’t shop at Albertson’s either because the previous owner was a Mormon and he didn’t want to be vicariously “paying tithe to the cultists”. I asked him, though, if he would pay taxes to the cultist president if the White House platform was 1) flat tax and 2) kill more terrorists than anyone in history.
My fundamentalist family member said he would vote in a guy he thinks worships a demon if that person’s platform was “kill more terrorists than anybody in history”.
Of course, I’d vote for Vladimir Putin if I thought he had an itch to kill terrorists.
Lehosh on March 13, 2007 at 9:47 AM
The online poker thing is ridiculous. I cannot believe Bush passed that bill.
And I’m fine with decriminalization of pot, but I’m not interested in seeing it legalized.
Esthier on March 13, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Romney’s biggest problem is going to be his abortion flip-flopping. If he can somehow get around that, he’s got a good shot at landing the nomination.
Bear in mind Rudy has the same problem, only in spades. It’s going to fracture the base to a degree.
Nethicus on March 13, 2007 at 10:17 AM
I’m with Bryan on this one… policy first.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 13, 2007 at 10:22 AM
If your going to decriminalize it, you might as well make it legal, and then tax the ever living bloody h3ll out of it… Just like tobacco.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 13, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Romney isn’t my favorite, but I would vote for him over any of the existing Democratic hopefulls. And in this, I think he has just as much chance of winning as does Guliani and McCain.
The person I would most like to see run is Fred Thompson.
Lawrence on March 13, 2007 at 10:34 AM
“Once again we see that any Christian based religion is fair game, something to put under the microscope, something to be suspicious of….”
A more accurate statement would be, “…anything perceived as a Christian based religion…”. But it doesn’t matter anyway, Romney is going nowhere fast and he will not be the republican candidate anyway.
NRA4Freedom on March 13, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Very true. And there is a solid reason behind his apparent flip-flopping on this.
Abortion in Mormon/LDS culture isn’t as taboo as it is in traditional orthodox Christian culture. An aborted baby in Mormon culture can still be baptized into heaven after death, and believing in baptism after death is something the rest of Christendom soundly rejects.
I’m not saying that Mormons are pro-abortion, because this is not true. I’m just pointing out why abortion is not something Mitt Romney (like Orin Hatch) hangs their hat on in their political careers.
If you like Hatch then vote for Romney because their socio-political agendas should be pretty similar.
Lawrence on March 13, 2007 at 10:44 AM
I do not believe this is correct. I have never heard of such being done.
In my experience as a former Mormon, they are soundly pro-life.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 13, 2007 at 11:23 AM
This is where some Jews have issues with Mormons. There is a belief in some Jewish circles that Mormons have done baptism after death on Jewish Holocaust victims en masse, using names that have been taken from lists that are extant. I’m not sure whether this is an urban legend, or whether there are hard sources behind it, but many Jews believe it, and it makes them nervous.
smellthecoffee on March 13, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Mormons have a big demographic base and could make up 15% of America’s population within a generation or two. America will become more conservative unless the “undocumented” community all vote Democratic.
aengus on March 13, 2007 at 12:53 PM
They baptized Hitler…
Nice professional looking site there, accept it at your own risk.
JamesVersusEveryone on March 13, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Then the drug dealing community (did I just write that?) will have to diversify their supply to deal in harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Unlike alcohol (which 9/10ths of the adult population have been ingesting for centuries) the effects of pot aren’t fully known.
aengus on March 13, 2007 at 12:59 PM
That’s just silly. If there is a life after death, wouldn’t the dead person get a choice? How could a Mormon baptism for a dead person, somehow override or invalidate a Jewish ceremony.
If the Mormons are what NRA4Freedom has claimed, and are nothing more than a cult, than I’m sure that whatever God there may be would be understanding about the “recklessness” of a few nuts.
If people are that unsteady in their faith, they have alot bigger issues than just being “nervous” about Mormons.
If there isn’t life after death, then it’s a mute point.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 13, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Once again, even if it was done… so what. I’m sure that the almighty has the last say and not some religious zealot who may or may not of done Mormon temple work for Hitler.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 13, 2007 at 1:05 PM
If Hitler was baptized a Catholic, does anyone believe that this should reflect badly on the Catholic church? Does anyone think that God would accept Adolph Hitler into Paradise? Does anyone think that Allah would accept Adolph Hitler into Paradise?
The fact that the Mormons may or may not of done a baptism for the dead for Hitler doesn’t mean that he is somehow “auto-magically” saved.
Hitler will still be held accountable for his life. I doubt that any God would accept that monster.
But then, I am sure in my beliefs.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 13, 2007 at 1:18 PM
As a “born in the covenant” Morman for 20 years, and now EX-MORMON; my humble opinion is that Mitt has absolutely 0% chance of becoming President. Not only is he a proven, flip-flopping “suit” just like Kerry was (first time ever I’ve agreed with Colmes, ahhh! What’s the world coming to!) on MANY issues, but the LDS Church has way too much “dirty laundry” that is going to be pinned on Mitt. He has no idea, poor guy. Plus, he has the dubious task of wading past the political mud-slinging of the Liberals AND the Evangelicals.
I hear what you are saying Bryan, and absolutely believe your honest personal stance. However, I have serious doubts that the powerful Evangelical lobbying churches and pastors across the Bible belt feel the same. Also, the Hot Air message board the past few months has been a nice little barometer of the brimming anti-Mormon sentiment out there in the Evangelical crowd.
All I can say, is that if Mitt doesn’t bow out early on (which I can almost guarantee he’ll do because of either personal faith struggles or at a “behind the scenes behest” of the leadership of the LDS Church), Mormons are going to experience (maybe already starting to happen?) a very faith shattering experience over the next 6-18 months, with all of the sacred details of their doctrine and history being debated in the national media. Mormons (my own personal and extended family) have no idea what Mitt and “they” are walking into. Just my two cents.
Roark on March 13, 2007 at 1:25 PM
That is hilarious. On that same note, I’m sure there were Mormons on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Mormons also crashed their flying saucer at Roswell. Mormons run Area 51. It’s all a big Mormon conspiracy!
Who holds back the electric car,
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star!?
We do! We do!
Who robs capefish of their site,
Who rigs every Oscar night?!
We do! We do!
sweetlipsbutterhoney on March 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM
It is common knowledge that Mormon baptize the dead all the time. It’s not even a debatable point. And I did clarify that Mormons are primarily ani-abortion.
However, what efforts have the LDS establishment, (Orin Hatch, Mitt Romney, etc.) made to reverse Roe vs. Wade? I suggest we do some checking on Hatch’s voting record on this. Also check out local politics in Utah and see how many abortion clinics are picketed and/or shut down through local grass-roots efforts.
Lawrence on March 13, 2007 at 3:49 PM
I have never heard of an aborted child having been baptized in this fashion. It’s utter nonsense to think this would be condoned by the church.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 13, 2007 at 3:51 PM
That is hilarious. On that same note, I’m sure there were Mormons on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Mormons also crashed their flying saucer at Roswell. Mormons run Area 51. It’s all a big Mormon conspiracy!
Who holds back the electric car,
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star!?
We do! We do!
Who robs capefish of their site,
Who rigs every Oscar night?!
We do! We do!
sweetlipsbutterhoney on March 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Oh no, are you a Mormon? I’m definitely not a conspiracy theorist, first off. So please don’t make false assumptions and throw disingenuous straw men statements out there trying to discredit me.
Let’s talk about the facts shall we? Or do you want to take this to a Mormon apologetic’s or Ex-Mo board? I’m sure everyone doesn’t want to see us air out the Church’s dirty laundry here or do they? Polygamy? Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? Adam-God Doctrine? The Kinderhook plates? The Mountain Meadow Massacre? The historic, genetic, linguistic, and archaeological contradictions of the Book of Mormon? Masonic ritual and Blood Atonement Oaths and Rituals in the Temple ceremony until 92’? Should I go on?
By the way, it has been very well documented that Ezra Taft Benson (via Steve Benson, his grandson. Who by the way has very interesting, verified correspondence letters with Dallin H. Oaks and Boyd K Packer which also furthers my point of what the Church leadership is capable of) was sadly “propped up” as Church prophet in his final years before he passed away by the likes of the Quorum of the Twelve (e.g. making public statements that he was still the prophet, seer, and revelator) specifically by Monson and Hinckley (e.g. Hinckley making sure “power of attorney” of church affairs was signed away while these public statements were yet being made about his health being fine and still leading the church), while in fact being quite mentally and physically incapacitated. This is the evidence I was going off of and shows that the Church leadership will take great measures to misrepresent the truth, in order to preserve a “good” image to the members. Asking Mitt to step out, in one way or the other, is quite plausible actually, but shall we wait and see what happens? Of course the general membership of the church wouldn’t know it, but it’s my hypothesis that Romney in fact won’t even make it to the convention.
Finally, this was my whole point in my last post. I’m sure that there’s a lot about the LDS church that many members don’t know. I sure didn’t. So if you want to talk Church then let’s talk Church, but please don’t insult my intelligence.
Roark on March 13, 2007 at 3:58 PM
By the way everyone, it’s abosolutely, only a metaphoric “baptism for the dead”. I just couldn’t tell by the way some people talk about it here, so I apologize if everyone already knew that. It sounds strange, but the Mormons aren’t talking about baptism, with literal, physical people/babies of any age. Only supposed spirits. Also, Utah and Idaho Mormon/Republicans are staunchly Anti-Abortion/Pro-Life, just like the Bible belt. It’s the same litmus test my Mormon parents use when deciding to vote for any elected official, just like many evangelical Christians do.
Roark on March 13, 2007 at 4:10 PM
As I understand it, Mormons baptize NO one under the age of 8. Aborted child, stillborn, kid who dies at age 5, no one, for a very simple reason: Baptism is not required until the age of accountability, viewed as age 8. This includes baptism for the dead; if we know of someone who died before age 8, then baptism is not a requirement, simple as that.
Also, as far as “converting people against their will”, that also is nonsense– baptizing is of no value whatsoever if the person doesn’t accept it. And that includes a dead person.
Vanceone on March 13, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Roark–see, it is people like you the libs are counting on to do their dirty work and impose a religious test on America. You clearly have a bitter grudge, and are doing your best to spread FUD; I would ask you to stop it.
Vanceone on March 13, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Ding. I finally get what you’re trying to tell me. While Mormons do baptize the dead, it is for people who have died after birth, not before birth.
I respectfully recant my earlier mis-statements on this.
Lawrence on March 13, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Well I’m sorry Vanceone, but I don’t have a bitter grudge and was trying to be as truthful as I could. Please correct me if I misstated anything above. I’m sorry if I struck a nerve regarding Mormonism, I have specifically avoided commenting on any of the Mitt/Mormon threads here at HA up until now, because people get too defensive. Again, I am not attacking Mormon people. The people I love most in this world are Mormon. However, the Mormon Church has serious issues, which have been swept under the rug for decades, and with a Mormon presidential candidate you are going to see Mormonism discussed whether you like it or not at level of scrutiny never seen before in the public eye. I also have no personal problem with Mitt being a Mormon! I completely recognize is right to practice whatever religion he may choose as a citizen of America. However, for me personally, I disagree with Mitt Romney/the politician, on many of his ideals, his “Kerryesque” voting record, and him implying that “faith” should be a necessary presidential qualification trait.
I would like to say though that “liberals” are not counting on people like me to do anything, haha! I despise every candidate they have to offer, which is why I love HA;)! If it came down to it, I would in fact still vote for Romney if he was the nominee against Hillary/Edwards/Obama/Gore and anyone else in that poor party who has announced. Lieberman would be the only Dem, I would even think about voting for, and we know how much the “liberals” love him, haha.
By the way, what is FUD?
Roark on March 13, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Heh. I suspected that, despite Bryan’s warning, anti-Mormon trolls would still find a way to infiltrate this thread. Roark is indulging in airing clearly personal issues dressed up as political ones. You wouldn’t rely on a bitter ex-Catholic exclusively for info about that church; or a self hating Jew (such as described by David Mamet in his book “The Wicked Son”) alone for insights about Judaism. I think over the next 18 months when people get a balanced,rational look at Mormon beliefs they will find a lot to like and admire, even if they choose not to get much more involved with the church. The anti-Mormon rhetoric which shows up on conservative political blogs only pollutes the atmosphere with hate. If you would really vote for Romney despite his religion, they why keep obsessing with disinformation about Mormon doctrine in forums like these?
WasatchMan on March 13, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Well first, I’m really kicking myself in the ass for even opening my mouth up on this thread. I honestly and truthfully apologize; this was obviously the wrong forum, and for that I’m truly sorry.
If you read my original post, there is nothing “anti-Mormon” about it. I was merely stating my opinion, that the very dialogue (in which you have now called me an “anti-Mormon troll”, “bitter”, a “hate polluter”, as well as making possible comparisons to me as a “self hating Mormon” and/or a “wicked son”, by referencing that specific book), we are engaging in, is/and will take place across the country because of Mitt running.
Second point. I have not called anyone here names, nor linked to any anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon (you can’t classify everyone who is ex-, as anti-, that’s false) websites, and have intentionally not made any specific claims as a blatant attempt to “satisfy a grudge”. The only specifics I mentioned about regarding Benson were only in response to the implication of me being some weird conspiracy theorist, so I could show my rationale and evidence for my original post.
Finally, I do not “obsess with disinformation” on this topic. Like I said, I have never posted on anything even concerning Mormonism until these last 4 posts and I’ve been here for a while. I’m sorry you took my posts as offensive to you. I was not trying to spread hate or “personal issues dressed up as political” ones. I will leave it at that. I hope that the random observer who is detached from Mormonism on either side of the isle will see that my posts have not come off as defensive and morally absolute, unlike the ones that have been posted attacking me as a person, instead of taking issue with my actual views and opinions which I expressed. I obviously won’t do it again, unless it his explicitly related to topics and content in which AP, Bryan, and Ian blog about in the future.
Roark on March 13, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Oh no, are you a Mormon? I’m definitely not a conspiracy theorist, first off. So please don’t make false assumptions and throw disingenuous straw men statements out there trying to discredit me.
Let’s talk about the facts shall we? Or do you want to take this to a Mormon apologetic’s or Ex-Mo board? I’m sure everyone doesn’t want to see us air out the Church’s dirty laundry here or do they? Polygamy? Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? Adam-God Doctrine? The Kinderhook plates? The Mountain Meadow Massacre? The historic, genetic, linguistic, and archaeological contradictions of the Book of Mormon? Masonic ritual and Blood Atonement Oaths and Rituals in the Temple ceremony until 92’? Should I go on
I am a current LDS person and not some person without the guts to stick things out like ex-mormon’s, so I would be thrilled to discredit you. The other person had you pegged absolutly and completely. Of course I was explaining to my dad that to my shame and horror, that supposedly kind conservative sites like that still damage one of their own because of your own religions intolerance and bigotry
As to your supposition about the other stuff, that laundry is aired so continuously and with the forever droning of the those anti-LDS or ex/anti-LDS like yourself, I would beg to ask what the difference is? I haven’t seen where it STOPS. It goes on so much none of you have noticed since the first ex/anti Mormon wrote his first book that there have been answers.
None of you really care. But NO. the headquarters do not tell him what to do.
As for those asking questions about what we have done to stop Roe vs Wade…what do you suggest? All I know is that we have the lowest statistic on that particular procedure. What has your religion done? Anything worthwhile? Any of your religious but political folks been able to stop it? All we can do at this point is tell our children that abortion is not an answer and then live it.
Noelie on March 13, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Don’t take my comments too personally because I feel the same way about all the GOP presidential hopefuls seeking nomination right now.
My question was not about what religion has done but what elected political leaders have done. What have LDS political leaders like Senator Hatch done over the last 20 years in context of overturning abortion laws? What has Romney done? What have the others done?
Hatch has voted on abortion issues at least 20 times since 1994, taking a solid pro-life stance. Which is good, even though he has initiated no pro-life bills or resolutions on his own.
Romney says he is against abortion, but his views on challenging the legality of Roe vs. Wade are pretty weak right now. And he, like Hatch, has initiated no anti-abortion legislation on his own.
Regardless of how anti-abortion Hatch, Romney or the other candidates are personally, I have absolutely no expectations that any of them will initiate any abortion reform in a pro-life manner, regardless of how pro-life their constituents may be.
>>>>
As to what do I suggest?
Overturn Roe vs Wade. It is a bad law and it is a bad precedent.
Abortion on demand is culturally reprehensible. A country dedicated to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness doesn’t deserve any of it if we refuse to protect the lives of our youngest and most innocent citizens.
Lawrence on March 14, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Ouch. My email address: sungo3000@yahoo.com I’ve got plenty of guts;)
Roark on March 14, 2007 at 7:15 AM
Comment pages: