Video: Romney tears up
posted at 3:43 pm on December 16, 2007 by Michelle
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Here’s the vid of Gov. Mitt Romney getting misty-eyed on MTP this morning:
Background here.
A few other reasons to reach for the Kleenex here.
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: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Are cynics trying to make this into another “Ed Muskie” moment???
I mean, one knock on Mitt has been that he appears too robotic, too programmed, and now when he shows some genuine HUMAN emotion, people are ready to pounce.
He seems far more genuine in this snippet than Hillary or John Edwards ever have and nodoby calls either of them robotic.
Always Right on December 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM
The big news to me is:
“Romney Will Not Say Church Was Wrong to Exclude Blacks”
I think most Americans will consider that now means its open season on him and LDS. We’re used to religions having made horrible mistakes in the past, but not just coming out and saying racial discrimination by your church is wrong is not going to stand.
frankj on December 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Genuine? It was coincidentally on cue, as he had to explain away an ugly aspect of his religion. Maybe a robot can be programmed to cry, as well as change his position, as needed, on abortion.
dedalus on December 16, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Romney didn’t say that the LDS church was wrong for being segregationist. Maybe he couldn’t.
What Romney did today doesn’t put this issue to bed. It will resurface if he is running in the general.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 3:59 PM
I dont like to see politicians cry. It always strikes me as being fake. I can excuse it if its something terribly tragic or something.
This seems to be a bit…odd… to be tearing up about.
amish on December 16, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Caveat emptor indeed. Let the buyer beware. We, the buyers, are totally screwed in this election season, from both sides of the isle. They’re all wolves in sheep’s clothing, and Mr. Warren, Oprah, Dr. Phil, the View, the MSM, the far lefties/righties, and a few more operatives are owning the wolves. It’s very depressing. I’m thinking more and more that we need a third party, but not one led by Mr. Paul.
The tears didn’t do anything for me.
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 4:01 PM
And, I should have added that the sheeple are also ‘owned’ by the same operatives, listed above.
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 4:05 PM
I was at BYU at the time of the announcement and people weren’t crying, but were shocked since some of their Apostles said the principle would not be changed in this lifetime. The school newspaper, The Daily Universe, ran a special edition and it was kind of strange to read people’s reactions of shock …one guy was quoted as saying the announcement of blacks being given the priesthood compared to the day JFK was killed which I thought was very odd. Anyway a black Mormon football player who was paralyzed received the priesthood and all was right with the world. The protests against BYU sports teams and Mormon boy scouts slowly faded away. Those are my memories of that day as an outsider watching it unfold.
deedledee on December 16, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Klein calls Romney “Clintonian” (at the second link). That’s the word I’ve been trying to find to describe why I’ve never been able to warm up to Romney. He’s a politician first, just like (Bill) Clinton. He’ll sway with public opinion like Clinton, and he’s a veritable verbal slip-n-slide. I do think Romney is more sincere than Bill about many things, but he’s way too willing to compromise for the sake of his own political fortunes for my comfort-level.
aero on December 16, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Mitt, save the tears for the day when you lose because you wouldn’t denounce your beloved church’s past wrongs. While you’re at it, save a few tears for when you meet your maker.
Only the weakest of human soul’s cannot denounce racial prejudice and discrimination. Mitt is a performer. His writers, along with the rest, are obviously on strike.
The Race Card on December 16, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Thanks
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Wishful thinking on your part?
Just out of curiosity, what candidate are you writing headlines for? This is what he said:
Moderator Tim Russert asked if “it was wrong for your faith to exclude them for as long as it did.”
“I told you exactly where I stand,” Romney said. “My view is that there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God. And I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.”
Be careful what you say or this could come back to haunt us! /S.
You know, as a Christian, I am getting pretty tired of having to counter attacks on Mormons by other Christians.
First of all, the LDS church had black members going back to the time of Joseph Smith; the “segregation” was for Bishops, not membership in the church. Secondly, the Southern Baptist Convention has a far worse record when it comes to “racial discrimination”.
Furthermore, apparently the SBC also does not allow female pastors.
Where’s the outrage?
Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Tough crowd!
Spirit of 1776 on December 16, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Yep. I’m starting to suspect they ain’t giving anybody a break.
terryannonline on December 16, 2007 at 4:39 PM
You people (and I use the word loosely) are incredible in your relentless and vile hatred for Mitt Romney’s religion. Inevitably, in the next day or so this thread will have 250 posts, most of them consisting of the usual Mormon-bashing and smearing. Really, what’s the point? Why can’t you for once leave it alone and stop hijacking this nomination process? My God.
Patriot33 on December 16, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Racism is wrong. It shouldn’t take a couple sentences to say something near that while avoiding saying it explicitly.
Romney has been my second choice, but if he doesn’t have enough courage to denounce racism by his church then he’s just sunk in my eyes.
frankj on December 16, 2007 at 4:46 PM
We’re really sorry. It was way too much to ask Romney to denounce racism. What in the world does that have to do with being president of the United States anyway?
frankj on December 16, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Wowee. Who’s exhibiting “relentless and vile hatred”? I don’t see any of that yet in this thread. Mild questioning of Mitt’s religion, but not “vile hatred” so far. It might yet appear, but you’re jumping the gun a bit I’d say.
I know I for one dislike Romney for reasons completely different from his religion. In fact, I’d say his religion is his main “plus” for me since I’ve never met a Mormon I didn’t like. Does that make me part of the “hijacking” of this nomination process? Dial down the rhetoric, Patriot.
aero on December 16, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Just to be clear, Frank, are you calling Mitt racist, or are you just implying it? Or you not implying it, but rather like the Hillary camp re: O’s drug use, that dems might make that connection?
Spirit of 1776 on December 16, 2007 at 4:50 PM
No, they just won’t divert from their attack line that Romney is a plastic man and a robot. They’re too busy praying Fred grows up for once in his cradle robbing, womanizing life and does something more substantive than crack jokes.
These Mitt haters simply get more loathsome by the day. They will take anything Mitt says, anything at all, even as he is denouncing racism and call him a racist.
They’re a bunch of swine. Go join the Islamonuts bigots, there’s plenty of room for you in the religion of the perpetually outraged.
BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 4:50 PM
The fact is that Mitt Romney’s father and mother were active in Civil Rights going back to when George Romney was the Governor of Michigan. Governor Romney instituted ground-breaking civil rights initiatives during his administration, and he marched with Martin Luther King. George Romney publicly dissented with the elders of the Mormon Church on the issue of race.
If you want to attack people for being racists and bigots, I have provided clues above as to some targets you may wish to go after. I will not join you in those attacks, because I believe in redemption.
There is only one candidate that I know of who has some questions that need answered and that is Barack Obama who belongs to a black separatist church. This is not something that happened in the past – this is part of his church’s mission statement right now, in 2007.
Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Go Mitt. Frontrunner on the way.
Halley on December 16, 2007 at 4:55 PM
I would have thought the tears were contrived but when Pope Benedict took a stand to forbid homosexuals from joining the priesthood, on the heels of the Priest Scandal, I was extremely touched and hopeful. Romney may very well be genuine regarding this matter.
sinsing on December 16, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Fred was right. Mitt is getting pretty good at this acting thing.
blackrepublican on December 16, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I saw nothing wrong with the video, but I didn’t see the entire interview and if he truly didn’t condemn the church then it’s a big net loss for him.
Nonfactor on December 16, 2007 at 4:58 PM
A strange choice of words when talking about the Catholic Chruch.
Nonfactor on December 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Frankj,
I see at your website you say that you don’t endorse anyone, yet you have post after post exclaiming the virtues of Fred Thompson, and provide a link to donate to his campaign.
You are honest about one thing! You are “unfair” and “unbalanced”. I can’t speak to the “unmedicated” part.
Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM
I don’t think he’s a racist; I think he’s a coward. I don’t want that as a president.
frankj on December 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM
All this mucking about inthe history of Mormonism is SOOOO beside the point of the 2008 Presidential Election.
Has everyone forgotten this is an election to be PRESIDENT of the UNITES STATES and not President of the Religious Chaplains of America.
I dont care what Mitt’s church thought 35 years ago.. any more than I am interested in what Huck’s church thought 35 years ago.
I am interested in what Mitt believes today. Do people believe Mitt is a racist TODAY?? Did he exhibit any overtly racist actions while Governor of Massachusetts for 4 years?
If not then this entire Mormon obsession is just a diversion from the main issues of the 08 election. I am at this point SICK AND BLOODY TIRED OF HAVING THIS ELECTION TURN INTO A RELIGION SEMINAR.
hey, Mr. Russert and all other media blowhards: how about encouraging a DEBATE ON THE REAL ISSUES: IMMIGRATION, WAR ON TERROR, ECONOMIC GROWTH and TAXES, ENERGY POLICY, IRAN.
PUH – LEEZE.
Always Right on December 16, 2007 at 5:02 PM
I think LDS believe prophecy is infallible. Over time new prophecies can replace old ones going forward, but can’t negate a ruling in the past. At least I think that is how they believe. If true, no one in LDS can say the LDS church was wrong teaching that blacks cannot get to the priesthood, could not get to the highest heaven, and could not therefore become gods like white people could.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Romney brought his religion into the race. If you don’t like it, write him.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Are you alleging I’m dishonest? I would like you to find one thing on my blog that isn’t absolutely true.
frankj on December 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Bingo. Yet you notice that the only Presidential candidates taking any flack from the mass media are the Republicans.
Another thing that will come out should Barack Obama get the Democrat nomination is the fact that the Big O also seems to be pretty racist. Rush Limbaugh played a cut from an interview the Big O did on a radio show on which she talked about “whitey” and bragged about black supremacy, or some such. I am sure he has the transcript of this on his site and I will have to look for it to get the exact words she used. But, I have to say that, even with not liking the Big O because of her leftism and ridiculous ‘reporting’ on Katrina, I was shocked to hear her say such racist things in this interview.
So if Barack Obama becomes the nominee, both he and the Big O will be exposed as racists. It will just be a matter of whether or not the mass media will cover for them. I wonder if Hillary will bring this out prior to the primaries if she gets too worried about him.
Michael in MI on December 16, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Young’un, grab a mirror today. You overstepped here and you’re too youg to be that judgmental. Oh, the irony of your post.
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 5:06 PM
s/b “too young” that is
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 5:07 PM
If true, no one in LDS can say the LDS church was wrong teaching that blacks cannot get to the priesthood, could not get to the highest heaven, and could not therefore become gods like white people could.
wtf? clearly i know nothing about mormons. Us crackers get to be Gods? sweet. I call dibs on being Zeus.
Suck it mortals.
amish on December 16, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Reading these comments I am reminded of what the Rock Man said to Obelieio.
“You hear what you want to hear and you see what you want to see…Ya dig?”
spike on December 16, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Well, I’m glad to hear that, it beats the alternative. Though I’m not sure what more you would want then “My view is that there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God.” No discrimination. I guess that’s a bad answer if you parse that to say that his doctrine is that God won’t discriminate, but it’s okay for Mitt to. But call me naive, but I doubt that’s what he meant.
I’m surprised at the response here actually. I don’t know that much about the history of the Mormon church, maybe they were racist. I don’t know, but Mitt’s faith is clearly important to him, else he would have shelved it for his run – so I don’t understand why people are predisposed to assume that he would be unmoved on what he values. If the history of the church was racist and he thought it was a human error incorporated in doctrine, why wouldn’t he be relieved when it was removed? I don’t understand the cynicism, it’s not even a political point.
Spirit of 1776 on December 16, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Yea, they were very racist, so were a lot of churches. The difference today is that most main stream churches have repudiated their racist past.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Where is the evidence that Romney thinks the doctrine was incorporated human error? The LDS taught tha the doctrine came from proficy and that another proficy told them to change the doctrine going forward, not that the previous doctrine was wrong. That is the issue. Romney isn’t saying the previous racist doctrine was wrong.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM
There’s a transcript at Politico, Nonny. The link is in the original posting.
Balderdash.
I am alleging that what you have said here today is dishonest, unfair, and unbalanced.
OT a bit, I happened to be surfing my satellite channels today and discovered that BYU has a broadcast channel (374) if anyone is interested. I’ve been watching it on and off all day and can report that they have been playing a lot of scary religious music that reveres Christ. Beware, or you might get suckered in by the stirring voices, beautiful compositions, and seductive musical instruments.
Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM
So the LDS were late to the game, on that score, yes? Is there any indication Mitt is racist other than some people think he faked, some, well not even tears, just welling up of tears? From BD’s 4.51 post sure seems unlikely.
Spirit of 1776 on December 16, 2007 at 5:18 PM
What you are asking him to do is to say his church was racist. That’s what you need to be satisfied.
He said there is no discrimination in the eyes of God. I don’t have to produce evidence that he think the doctrine was not human error but divine prophesy – I’m not calling him racist because he welled up about a decision he was grateful to hear. Every church that has an ‘infallibility’ measure, always nuances it later. Catholic/LDS/whatever… Are you saying that he should responsible for all the doctrine? If so, how do you read Article VI?
Spirit of 1776 on December 16, 2007 at 5:24 PM
I like Mitt well enough to vote for him. But the crying thing doesn’t do anything for me except to think fake and creepy. Yuck.
JiangxiDad on December 16, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Fact: The Rommney family has a strong tradition of working and advocating on behalf of civil-rights for African-Americans.
Fact: He won’t or can’t denounce his church’s past racist doctrines and practices.
Fact: I never called Rommney a racist nor a bigot.
Opinion: He’s afraid or unwilling to admit the obvious. You reference the Southern Baptists’ “resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery.” I agree it was long overdue and ultimately undoes nothing. But at least the Southern Baptists did not blame God for their past transgressions against other people.
If you consider my opinion to be an attack, let me restate it for you: Mitt Rommney is a wuss of a man for not being able to say unequivocally that his religion, that is, his spiritual leaders were wrong.
***
Regarding Obama’s current house of worship, the man is obviously in need of a pro-black energy boost to fuel his own feelings of cultural inadequacy. That is as much a problem with the black community as it is with Senator Obama.
Don’t get me wrong, the man is an absolute fool for creating an allegiance between him and such controversial a controversial religious leader. But I believe that Barack’s choice of church directly stems from intra-racism in the African-American community. Barack has no discernable ties to being authentically black enough for those African-Americans who put stock in such BS. Black churces are often seen as cultural centers in their respective communities. Barack thinks that by praying amongst a predominantly black congregation he is warding off some attack against his “blackness” or lack thereof.
This crap is no less insidious than Cancer to the black community and America.
The Race Card on December 16, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I don’t hate Mitt, or the Huckster or any of the others. I just don’t plan to vote for Mitt or the Huckster. Church’s are often segregated but not from any written policy. Not from the deacons either. I do know a black family who goes to a mostly white church. A Baptist church. Black people generaly attend black churchs, etc.
I never bought in that Mitt had changed on guns or immigration. I clicked on the link next to “kleenex” and
found ought through the Chris Mathews interview, I was right.
2theright on December 16, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Sigh, the issue is that Romney was a bishop and missionary in a church that taught blacks were cursed and unworthy of the priesthood until the IRS threatened their tax-emption status (in 1978) which triggered a convenient revelation from God that this is no longer the case.
You would think that a candidate with a history of convenience would be smart enough to clearly repudiate a doctrine that was changed for the sake of convenience. Instead, we get Clintonian answers similar to his responses around whether the Bible is the inspired word of God, whether Romneycare was truly government mandated, whether he agreed with or just described McCain-Kennedy amnesty as reasonable, etc.
I don’t believe Romney is a racist. I’m sure he’s a decent man. To echo Frank, he’s a complete coward, and I’ve yet to discover a single principled stand he’s made that didn’t coincide with the wishes of the electorate he was targeting or about to target.
Then again, I’m grumpy about all our candidates and will vote for whichever Republican is left standing.
blackrepublican on December 16, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Second that.
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Third.
aero on December 16, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Its too bad that it wasnt Huck crying on Meet the Press – his tears can cure cancer. Or at least grant you clemency.
amish on December 16, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Even if you believe Mitt welling up today, does anyone really picture Mitt the law student–a grown man–pulling over to sob in relief, all by himself on the side of the road, when he heard the news? Why would his emotions on the topic be that strong? Had he been personally fighting for it for many years? Did he have a best friend who was a black Mormon hoping to enter the priesthood? Is he himself really black under that white skin, just like Bill Clinton? Seriously, what would make him cry like that? What was his personal investment? I’m not being cynical here–I’d really like to know why we’re supposed to believe this story with no witnesses.
aero on December 16, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Religion,.. religion,.. religion. All we hear about now is the religious issues. The Dems are going to smoke the Repubs with an overwhelming landslide victory if they’re able to keep this up. Then they’ll say it was a mandate from the people to enact all the socialist legislation you ever ever wanted.
Griz on December 16, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Nobody is forcing you to defend anybody.
Why does it matter who is questioning whom? The questions are legitimate. You get all butt-hurt because someone dares to question another person’s moral courage. Oddly, you express frustration over having to defend Rommney against similar accusations you levy against Obama.
As for your quotes around the segregation, they tell me everything else I need to know.
And for goodness sakes, please save the pseudo-outrage. You have not been accused of being a racist or even an idiot. But, I’m sure you will find some way to work such allegations into your “tired” retort.
The Race Card on December 16, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I’m still focused on the candidates and the issues, Griz, as are a great many voters. I’m only concerned about religion when the candidates make speeches about it or when they claim that God has chosen them.
I think (hope) religion will take a back seat once the nomination is done. It’ll come up, but it won’t be the focal point of the general like it is now in the Republican primaries.
aero on December 16, 2007 at 5:48 PM
I think (hope) religion will take a back seat once the nomination is done. It’ll come up, but it won’t be the focal point of the general like it is now in the Republican primaries.
Unless Huck wins. And then you will hear about it every day until he goes down in a landslide.
amish on December 16, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I never said you said that. It’s a matter of semantics.
Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Bravo Sierra. The High Reverend Huckster and others who have hijacked a religion of peace and declared a jihad on Mormons did.
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 6:01 PM
On an earlier post I mentioned the interview with Mitt and mistakenly named Chris Matthews as the interviewer. It was Tim Russert, sorry.
2theright on December 16, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Then I will take it upon myself to clarify. I think Mitt Rommney is far from racist. Honestly, he seems to be a very “sensitive” man.
I think his softness for humanity is really what’s earned him some of his duplicitous positions. He doesn’t like offending people. He was asked about the Confederate flag during one of the debates. He seemed so annoyed by the fact that people still fly it that he almost couldn’t get an answer out.
No the man is not a racist. Yes he has a problem drawing hard lines around the boxes which define him. He’s still better than Huckabee.
The Race Card on December 16, 2007 at 6:02 PM
You are correct, but I consider it a moral and ethical duty to refute what I believe are outrageous attacks on Mitt Romney.
The situation is not similar at all.
You don’t know squat. I put quotes around the word because that is the word that bnelson used to describe the situation, and what he said was false. The LDS church was not “segregated” but that is what he and others would like us to believe.
I am completely sincere in everything I say. If you want to look at it as “outrage” fine. I think “disgust” is a better word, and the fact remains that there is an incredible amount of ignorance displayed in some of the commentary, not to mention the outright hypocrisy of Huckabee supporters giving the Southern Baptist Convention a pass for far worse transgressions – which were not amended until 1995, decades after the Mormons changed their position on allowing blacks to be Bishops.
Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Dude’s obviously a n00b Frank, I think he’s the type that would need /sarc tags at a Don Rickles show.
TBinSTL on December 16, 2007 at 6:04 PM
No, they haven’t renounced the previous proficy. They simply changed it going forward.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Dude’s a lady, and she’s been here a long time.
aero on December 16, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I would attribute it to his diplomatic nature, not “duplicity”.
Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Before I go out to dinner, I have one request for bnelson44.
If you are going to present yourself as an expert on American religions, could you please learn to spell the word “prophecy“?
Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Mitt should not have given the speech. Now it is a prime issue in his campaign.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Hey, never saw a word I couldn’t misspess :)
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Thanks, I’ll remember that in case someone from 1970 runs for office. For now I’ll judge the man by the man himself.
Spirit of 1776 on December 16, 2007 at 6:14 PM
OK, so when he repudiates the previous racism of his church, the church he was a missionary for when it was racist, and a church that still doesn’t repudiate its previous racism tomorrow, I’ll stand by him. Until then, it is what it is.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Anyone can denounce racism. Doing that is free, doesn’t cost a dime.
This “I am more against racism than thou and I said it in a better way than thou, so nah, nah, nah” is wearing very thin.
Watch what they do, not what they say.
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 6:17 PM
I’m not the one who takes a 40 second clip of Romney talking about his core beliefs vis-a-vis opposing discrimination with anecdotal references to past events and use it as a platform to call him a wuss, actor, or fraud.
The people who did that were and are swine. They are so blinded by their hatred of a man who has never wronged them and has by all rights rejected the old LDS beliefs they find objectionable that they will attack his character and sincerity regardless.
They are perpetually outraged and offended by Mitt no matter what the reason. I stand by my analysis.
BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 6:18 PM
The difference being for the Baptists was that God himself didn’t tell them to.
All cults have progressive revelations that are often 180 degrees opposite of earlier revelations. Personally, I would ignore both “revelations.”
I hope it doesn’t come down to Mitt or the Jackboot Feminazi.
Mojave Mark on December 16, 2007 at 6:18 PM
So why hasn’t Romney denounced the previous racism of his church? (sorry you left yourself open for that one).
BTW: Maybe everyone should fear Ron Paul
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Speaking for myself (and I suspect a good number of others who are not currently Mitt supporters), I don’t hate Mitt. I just don’t want to vote for him in the primary, and I hope he doesn’t get the nomination because I don’t think he’ll get the base excited enough to win the general.
This may come as a surprise to you, but most of us don’t hate the candidates we choose not to vote for. The Republican candidate I most dislike is Huckabee, but I don’t hate him. On the other side, I fear and intensely dislike
Hillary, but I still don’t hate her. Hate is a very strong word, BK. Based on your history of comments here at HA, I believe you probably do hate Fred. But please don’t attribute that intensity of negative emotions to the rest of us. Most of us are weighing the issues and the candidates with a high degree of rationality. You should try it.
aero on December 16, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Hello!
It was already a prime “issue”.
And just how many times do you think that Romney should have turned the other cheek?
I think that he turned the other cheek more than enough time.
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 6:25 PM
No, the rule was you couldn’t become a priest in the LDS church if you had any black blood in you. An Aaronic priest in the LDS church is about 12 years old and is the first rank of their clergy. Every male in the LDS church is suppose to be part of the clergy. Not being a priest meant you could not participate in temple rituals. If you are not a priest and don’t partake in the temple rituals, a man cannot make into the highest heaven and become a god himeself. If a husband cannot become a god, his wife and family cannot be gods either. The belief was that blacks would be allowed into the lowest heaven as servents, if they followed church teaching.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:29 PM
boo hoo hoo what with this grown men crying crap?
Seeing senators and congressmen turning on the waterworks makes me sick too. Man up.
tlynch001 on December 16, 2007 at 6:30 PM
I heard him and he did just fine.
I repeat (I hate it when I have to do that) – This “I am more against racism than thou and I said it in a better way than thou, so nah, nah, nah” is wearing very thin.
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Again, I think the speech was a mistake. But then I have thought for a long time now that the country and possibly the LDS church itself, isn’t ready for a Mormon president. The LDS church could help Romney greatly by renouncing its past racism.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:31 PM
He didn’t renounce the LDS’ previous racism. He sidestepped the issue. As you said, it would have been easy for him to renounce it. But he didn’t. And not renouncing your church’s previous racism, while you were an adult missionary of that church, is an issue for a candidate of the presidency of the United States.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I’m with you aero. I just worry about our critical self-analyzing methods, pointing out for the MSM exactly the issues to take us down with. And they will. And they are. If the Republicans aren’t talking issues then the Dems aren’t pressured to either. Furthermore, conservatives shouldn’t have to talk religion. We all have plenty, or have a very good handle on not having any. The Dems should be the ones under pressure to sort out their religious issues. I guess I just hate the two party system.
Griz on December 16, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I’m perfectly fine with people not voting for Mitt. It’s when they rip him for being insincere when they’ve never given him a chance anyway. It’s when they call him a wuss for not acting like a robot when they spend all the rest of their time lambasting him for acting like a robot.
As far as Fred, all he’s offered up recently is snark and one-liners. He lost his chance and let everyone else define him while he floundered and stumbled to be a presence. He squandered his lead and now he’s trying to play catch-up with nothing substantive to say.
BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Since when is calling HA commenters “swine” acceptable?
You can argue the same, for which I will support you any time, without resorting to such language. You also lose your argument that way.
This from someone who will vote for him.
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM
It was ALREADY front and center prime!!!
Where have you been? Some place fun I hope.
You could help the political process of America by not injecting religious tests into it.
And now it’s the LDS church that should denounce the past, not good enough what they are doing now, oh no, they should dig up the past and flail themselves over it. And Romney did denounce racism, he just did not do it in the manner that you want, as if that would remain good enough for you. And how about all the other religions with their past and present racism, admitted or not, and their past and present sexism and their past and present gay bashing and their past and probably present pedophilia.
This all just like a jihad against Mormons.
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM
I’ve been called worse here.
Just rolls off.
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Racism is a religious test now?
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:52 PM
You sure seem to be trying to make it one.
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Mitt is the guy who was proselytizing a racist religion and now won’t renounce that religion’s practices at the time. If Byrd was running for president we would expect him to renounce his racist past, and he was only a bit player and never advanced to the ranks Mitt did. Yea, it is an issue and should be until he renounces it.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 6:57 PM
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM
I agree with you on all this. Just can’t stand the faux tears. It just doesn’t add up. Don’t misunderstand. I actually like a guy who can cry now and then. It does them a lot of good. But this was melodrama.
I’ll vote for Romney, though he is a slick one. But which ones aren’t, of those in the run? He has good executive and personal qualities, enough to be better than many others, from a field which is so-so, on both sides. The Mormon adherence doesn’t phase me, so long as it will not run the country, and much of the world.
Yes, but you are much tougher than the majority. Hence, one of the reasons I like you. Doesn’t matter that we should dish out that which we can take.
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Since they started acting like it. HA commenters have no problem making derogatory statements about the Islamonuts, and interestingly enough I wasn’t called on that slur.
If people don’t like being characterized in some manner, perhaps they should not act in such a manner as to cause such slurs to come forth.
“Romney’s a robot!”
*Romney delivers sincere speech on religion in America.*
“Romney’s an actor!”
*Romney talks about his parents and his own service and wells up a little.*
“Romney’s a wuss!”
I simply called them as I see them. They have nothing to add to anything. This is just the last straw. Nothing short of a personal apology from Mitt himself for all the wrongs of the LDS church’s past will placate them, and then they will say:
“Romney’s a liar!”
Because that is what they believe and no one will sway them from their line of attack.
BKennedy on December 16, 2007 at 7:00 PM
I took a Logic class one, and this type of exercises were a lot of fun:
1. HA commenters are
nutsswine2. Islamofascists are
nutsswineTherefore, HA commenters are Islamofascists.
Make your good points, without stooping low. You’re an intelligent person, and I know that you can.
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Yup, You sure seem to be trying to make it one (religious test for political office).
I am beginning to think that you can’t help yourself.
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Sign of a true conservative. Everyone knows what a conservative thinks and how he’d deal with the situations and issues. And he will do so as they come. That’s what I like best about Fred. A man of few words. But a real man none-the-less.
Romney – A plastic CEO doll. Not his fault, he’s just trained himself to be the best at what he does. The reason we’re not all super successful CEOs? Because that’s what it takes. Oy. A true moderate. A good economic president.
Huckabee – Definitely America’s first “The Purpose-Driven Life” [Rick Warren] candidate. Liberal economically, Moderate socially, Ignorant of foreign policy. Expert in foreign aid. A moderate-liberal. A Bill Clinton with morals. Maybe. A good social president. A disaster in foreign policy.
McCain – Old. A man of great public service. A western blue dog liberal. Sadly mistaken on several issues. Not a good Republican president. A good Democrat president.
Thompson – Man of few words, yet inspiring. A good man. Yet very politically savy with a renaissance style. Easily the most fun president. IMO this country badly needs some fun on the political scene. A conservative.
Paul – A man who believes he’s doing the right thing. A good man. A family man. Libertarian protectionist.
Hunter – A good man. A fair man. By far the best President of the buch. Doesn’t stand a chance. Maybe we’ll get lucky and he’ll be the VP candidate. A conservative.
Giuliani – A ‘great’ U.S. Federal Prosecutor who wants to be president. A blue dog liberal with a passion for a strong anti-crime policy. A good president with strong advisors and a cooperative congress.
Tancrado – A good man that deeply loves his country. A little bit protectionist, but a good conservative besides the hardcore immigration policy. Would make a great cabinet member who could get some chit done. Too unpopular as a president to be described as a good president.
Griz on December 16, 2007 at 7:19 PM
How about you renouncing your anti-Mormonism, and in a manner approved by me?
And if you belong to any religious group or cult (all in the eyes of the beholder) you could also renounce any bad tings that they have ever done, and in a manner approved by me, even if they are not doing them any more and you never did them personally.
That should keep you busy for a while.
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 7:23 PM
If you don’t think racism is an issue, just wait and see what the Democrats will do to him in the general if he is the GOP’s candidate.
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 7:24 PM
bnelson44, if you can see so clearly that Mr. Romney is a “racist”, as you say, then how come you didn’t see so clearly what a religious bigot yours, Mr. Huckabee is, against the Mormons?
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Entelechy,
He belongs to a church that was clearly racist when he was an adult missionary for that church. He hasn’t renounced it’s past or alternately his participation in that past. Those are simple facts. He needs to renounce the LDS church’s racist past if he expects to make it to the white house. Why would we give him a pass on this and not Robert Byrd?
bnelson44 on December 16, 2007 at 7:29 PM
That’s funny. B Nelson resigns from Hillary’s camp tomorrow, I assume.
Spirit of 1776 on December 16, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »