Uh-oh: LDS theology disputed by…Mitt Romney; Update: Romney camp responds
posted at 1:18 pm on December 29, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I’ll have to defer to any LDSers in the readership here, since my Mormon theology is, to say the very least, weak. I will say that it’s not exactly a shock to hear that a prominent member of a church or sect either doesn’t know or may not subscribe to all the tenets of the church or sect to which he belongs. My own Southern Baptists had a knock-down drag out back in the 1980s over basic theology and doctrine, my conservative side more or less won, but most of the more liberal folks who were disputing some basic tenets stayed put in the SBC. Some, like Jimmy Carter, eventually left. He hasn’t been missed.
And then there’s the head of the Anglican church, Rowan Williams, disputing pretty much the entire Christmas birth story.
So there’s all that to consider here. Still, if the founding head of your church claims to have spoken directly with God, and you say that he didn’t, you have at the very least a problem to work out with your own church and you’ll probably hear from the elders. As a non-Mormon, I really don’t care all that much, though I’d be a little more careful than Mitt is here to claim that God hasn’t spoken to anyone directly since Moses. The Gospels themselves sort of militate against that, if you accept the divinity of Jesus.
Update (AP): Team Romney sends this quote:
Pre-Eminent Mormon Scholar Says Governor Romney’s Comment Doesn’t Contradict LDS Church. “Jan Shipps, one of the pre-eminent Mormon scholars, says Romney’s comment doesn’t contradict LDS Church beliefs because he mentions that God spoke to ’some others,’ and he didn’t just leave it at Moses.” (Thomas Burr, “Comment Appears At Odds With LDS Faith,” Salt Lake Tribune, 12/22/07)
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 »
It’s not the topic, it’s the lyin’ pandering that gets me.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Bryan you know I respect you. You are a fellow Texan and patriot. That said, you are on your own here. This is going to get ugly. I’ll sit this one out with some beer and popcorn. Just in case you need it the first-aid box is down the hall.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM
double standards
Resolute on December 29, 2007 at 1:26 PM
On a semi-related note, Sheriff Joe has endorsed Mitt!
Tony737 on December 29, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I’m not a Romney supporter, but the entire news story is based on a misrepresentation of his answer.
He said …
Obviously, that last portion of the comment was conveniently ignored to purposely create a controversy.
Gregor on December 29, 2007 at 1:35 PM
I have debated Christianity vs. Mormonism with some of my Mormon friends before. I have always found Mormon folk to be polite, respectful and kind, and I have always enjoyed and respected my Mormon neighbors.
They have their faith, I have mine. Big deal.
However, if Mitt is openly backing away from very basic Mormon tenets, that is going to be a huge, huge problem for him. He is wielding a double-edged sword in a very clumsy manner here, I think.
Campaign killer stuff.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Don’t mean to disparage anyone’s deeply-held beliefs, but I am geeting REALLY tired of “my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend” reports on TV, which should do it’s patriotic (and FCC licensed) duty by discussing POLITICAL issues during a national presidential campaign.
I urge all candidates (except Huck, of course, who gets a special dispensation because … well, just because) to ignore reporters’ questions on religion. Religion is a PRIVATE affair. Except for Huck, of course, because it’s the major plank in his campaign.
fred5678 on December 29, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Obviously, he was for Joseph Smith before he was against him.
And equally obviously, when Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God and been spoken to by God - he meant “saw” and “spoken” figuratively rather than literally. Such as.
Welcome to Romney World!
The spinning begins in 5 … 4 … 3 …
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Why are we talking about this? What is it’s relevance - it’s a supposed flip-flop thing?
Spirit of 1776 on December 29, 2007 at 1:44 PM
well said.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Wow. That was just about the snidest “news report” I’d ever heard.
Tuning Spork on December 29, 2007 at 1:47 PM
no, it’s a lyin’, I’ll say ANYTHING to win thing.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 1:48 PM
BFD.
Purple Fury on December 29, 2007 at 1:48 PM
My imaginary friend is Jessica Alba. Occasionally Jessica Biel. Sometimes Jessica Simpson, except on football Sundays.
But her name is always Jessica. And she’s way, way better than your imaginary friend.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 1:48 PM
I have often wondered how well Mitt will come across to “regular, normal” Republicans when they start to REALLY look at some very basic tents of his faith.
I do think it will be an issue that plagues him, and he has only two choices: 1) defend the LDS faith to the end, or 2) flip flop away from it.
Given that Mormonism is most definitely not a faith of expediency, it will kill him either way. Period.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Gregor got here first.
“Perhaps others” is the vague answer from a politically astute man. I see no ‘controversy’, and I am still witt Mitt, meaning he has my vote. I don’t care if he’s Mormon; I think he would make the best President.
I know that to run for President there must be some EGO involved, but it seems to me that all other candidates, red and blue,are looking for what their country can do for them, rather than what they can do for their country. In other words, they want the prestige, to be remembered by history as a President, while Mitt seems more interested in taking up the burden of office, the toughest job in the world.
To quote Dennis Miller, “But that’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.”
Doug on December 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM
You wish.
davenp35 on December 29, 2007 at 1:51 PM
If you say so. Enjoy the thread.
Spirit of 1776 on December 29, 2007 at 1:55 PM
What’s wrong with this picture?
Purple Fury on December 29, 2007 at 1:55 PM
MRDS has started!
If any person knows every tenet of their church/faith, I’ll be stunned.
SouthernGent on December 29, 2007 at 1:57 PM
No, I really don’t. I just think it is inevitable.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I don’t know what clip you were watching but there was nothing sectarian in what Mitt or the interviewer said.
aengus on December 29, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I wont vote for Mitt in the Primary but this is ridiculous. I see it as just a “A-ha gotchya!” moment. Akin to “When did you stop beating your wife?”
To the press and Dems:
Changing doctrine to include blacks in the faith = GOOD
Perhaps not believing word for word your faith = HYPOCRITE
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 2:02 PM
ALL of em? maybe not. But I sure know the important ones. And if ya ask me about ‘em, I won’t lie to try’n make ya like me better.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Personally, I don’t care what any candidate’s faith is (or if they have one).
The problem I see is when you start backsliding a little bit on your faith, people want to know what they are, and WHY you are.
That’s all.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Imagine the headlines if he would have confirmed his belief that God spoke to founder:
MITT ROMNEY PROCLAIMS THAT HE HEARS VOICES!!
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM
This thread is useless without Buy Danish. Come dance for me, Buy Danish. My popcorn is at the ready, and I’m using a spare keyboard in case you make me spit coffee all over it.
This thread could also use some blimp pictures.
Indeed. But as always, it’s the weaseling and spinning that’s damaging him, and I have little doubt you’ll get to watch his supporters make it worse.
It’s not really his fault. He’s a politician to the core. Which means pandering is in his blood.
It’s too bad all the candidates don’t either 1) start refusing to answer questions about personal religious beliefs, or 2) respond with: “I’m a (Mormon/Baptist/whatever). Those are my beliefs. That’s my church. Next question, please.”
Instead, he weasels. In an attempt to offend no one, he pleases no one. Even in his answer, there’s that throwaway “and perhaps others” specifically designed to ensure a little spin room.
If you’re foolish enough to answer that question, Mittens, how about a straight answer: did Joseph Smith talk to God, yes or no? “And perhaps others” need not apply.
I like to mock Mitt for his impressive case of Politician-itis, but he’s not exactly unique in his affliction.
He just seems particularly bad at it.
Or his advisers just plain suck. All of his most famous gaffes came from questions that should have had well-vetted answers.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 2:05 PM
SECOND LOOK AT MORMONISM!!
Purple Fury on December 29, 2007 at 2:05 PM
I have to side with Mitt here. He CLEARLY says “…and perhapse some others” It’s clear to me he’s saying that God does not speak to him. This report is misleading because they pretend that he never said and maybe others.
ronsfi on December 29, 2007 at 2:09 PM
There was nothin’ wrong in the question. It was the same question JFK got about the Pope interferring in the business of state.
It is WELL known that Mormon folks believe that Folks in their church have heard the voice of God. That is not a BAD THING.
The problem comes when Mitt effectively answers with “Pope?? what Pope?? don’t know no POPE!” If JFK had given THAT answer- he NEVER would’ve been elected.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 2:09 PM
“the 1978 revelation that blacks can be” preachers? I find it funny that the LDS seems to have the kinds of revelations when it’s convenient and a good time to pollitically correct the church. As far as my opinion of Joseph Smith goes he was a fraud who had a vision when it was convienent for him because he couldn’t keep his pants zipped.
boomer on December 29, 2007 at 2:09 PM
SECOND LOOK AT SECOND LOOKS!!!!11ONE1!!!
ronsfi on December 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Would someone please pass the butter?
Giants stadium…clear, wind 9
Washington tomorrow, rain, sleet, and snow
ok….back to Mitt.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Ok this is getting tiresome. I propose the following:
All candidates, Dem and Rep must enter Thunderdome!
16 Men enter, on Man leaves.
-using the word men wasnt a mistake, I think Hillary has bigger cojones than most candidates-
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Okay Mitt-en- just once PLEASE try to stay on topic. Or go to a cold thread, please.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Agreed. And that’s why I really wish all of the candidates would just stop answering these questions. Mitt’s speech on the topic covered this extensively.
But you have to admit - seeing someone try to spin and parse the most basic tenet of their faith is a little troubling.
For example, if an avowed Muslim runs for office and is asked “was Mohammad Allah’s prophet” I wouldn’t expect to hear this sort of answer. Would you?
If you can’t unequivocally agree that Joseph Smith heard God talk to him or received God’s word … are you a Mormon? I dunno. I do know that if you don’t accept the divinity of Christ, you obviously aren’t a Christian.
It’s pretty basic stuff, and even on this, the man wobbles and weebles.
This isn’t really much of a story. It’s only interesting in the broader context of Mitt’s prior record of flip-flopping, half-truths, parsing, weaseling, spinning, and politicking.
If Mitt hopes to win, this is the ONE thing he has to start avoiding. He has to offer plain-spoken, straight answers. Whether you agree with it or not, this is now the Mitt meme. He’s being branded as a John Kerry. And he keeps making it so easy.
I would hope even his most smitten with Mittens supporters would agree that he has got to start speaking directly. About everything. Fairly or unfairly, its killing him.
And I’m now officially bored with Mitt. Somebody call me when they find him tap-dancing in a men’s room. Or if he gets a blimp.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 2:17 PM
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Right must embrace rationality - in all matters, not just defense and economics, and leave irrationality where it belongs, on the Left. It can’t have it both ways for much longer.
Halley on December 29, 2007 at 2:22 PM
er….quite frankly it is on topic…and my opinion of everyone elses opinion of the importance of Mitt’s faith.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 2:23 PM
And I’m now officially bored with Mitt. Somebody call me when they find him tap-dancing in a men’s room. Or if he gets a blimp.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Your wish is my command.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 2:24 PM
If you think this is about Mitt’s faith- then you’re missin’ the point, or bein’ intentionally obtuse.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Point taken. I’ll back out of the room quietly.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Oh. The humanity. That’d look better with Ron Paul photo-shopped on the side.
Am I off topic?
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 2:28 PM
If god hasn’t spoken to anyone since Moses that would negate every religion except fundamental Judaism. Is that what Mitt means to say?
Rode Werk on December 29, 2007 at 2:35 PM
I think if more of us would remember that sentiment, we would be better off.
mikeyboss on December 29, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Thanks. Controversy over.
Got that Professor Blather?
Buy Danish on December 29, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I’m getting the sense that Mormons suspect that Mitt is going to toss them overboard anytime now in an effort to seem less threatening to evangelicals and win the primaries.
They seem to be watching him closely, and possibly reacting a bit quickly, such as this time, to any indication he’s doing this. After all, he’s going to get their vote anyway–it’s the fence-sitting religious right he needs to assure that he’s not in the thrall of the lds prophet
albo on December 29, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I think this country would be far better off if we quit worrying about how closely our candidates follow whatever faith they claim to have and started worrying about why we give ourselves a choice between crap and poo every four years.
Can anyone honestly tell me they are very happy with any Republican presidential candidate right now? Are any of them conservative in more than a few areas?
Benaiah on December 29, 2007 at 2:58 PM
He could, in theory, lose both groups:
Outraged, betrayed Mormons in an “Anyone but Mitt” vote, and…
Untrusting, fearful Christians, in an “Anyone but Mitt” vote.
It boggles the mind.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 2:59 PM
You know you’re hitting the right notes when reporters try to make hay out of this non-story.
Toss them overboard? Just what ship is Mitt piloting that has anything to do with members of the LDS faith?
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Ah.
Controversy’s over, kids. Just Mitt being Mitt. The debate is over. (Strangely familiar, that last bit …)
Bryan, roll up the thread and delete the comments. It’s been taken care of. Prepare your retraction. I hope you’re ashamed of yourself.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
The Mitt-en have spoken.
(munches popcorn)
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Yes. What Romney said yesterday repudiating the basic tenet of his faith is a non-story. I can’t even figure out why Bryan blogged about it.
Let’s stick to important things. Like three billable hours a candidate racked up consulting another attorney 16 years ago. Or how many women he’s dated decades ago.
Let’s stick to important stuff like that, shall we?
(applies salt to popcorn)
How ’bout them Cowboys, huh? Is it bad if I root for the Giants tonight?
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 3:24 PM
The problem with Mitt is that he has the questionable, vacillating conservatism of McCain without the national security cred of Giuliani, the Southern appeal of Thompson, or the awshucks likability of Huckabee to convincingly sell it.
blackrepublican on December 29, 2007 at 3:26 PM
He is obviously continuing his campaign strategy of not championing Mormonism and downplaying religion specifics. This causes him to give answers that are not entirely satisfactory to all sides.
He went with a safe answer of “Moses and perhaps others” which can include any number of prophets including Mormon prophets. It also sounded like he was specifically addressing face-to-face appearances of God which do not happen to everyone.
He is not going to be in trouble with the Elders with this answer.
I think if he were able to address spirituality more directly, he would say that he hopes to have “revelation” from God daily while in the White House. Not in that face-to-face or vision of heavens opening thing, but that God would inspire him to make the best decisions for the United States in the same way the George Bush and other presidents have.
There is attention by Mormons on how Romney represents our shared religion in word and action. The press, even Utah local, is looking to parse his words to drum up controversy and ratings. There are also local Utah media groups who enjoy nothing more than poking a stick at the Mormon church.
Some Mormons would like him to be a champion of Mormonism as Huckabee is to his christianity. Some christians would like him to do this so they can blast him. Since Romney hasn’t, they have had to do it themselves. Some Mormons probably feel that any national attention on our religion is good as it brings investigation and conversion.
I think most Mormons would prefer, like Romney, to have our religion not be an issue at all and not have to endure the limelight.
For now, I think we’re more worried are Mormons going to be known for better or worse because of Romney and Reid. Maybe being associated with Polygamy won’t be so bad in comparison.
But that’s just my opinion, and I might be wrong.
Sebastian on December 29, 2007 at 3:29 PM
SECOND LOOK AT HARRY REID!!!
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Great post!
But obviously you don’t exist. There are no Black Republicans.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Not having a date on this video is problematic. We know that it’s approx. two weeks prior to the Iowa caucuses. We also know that the interview is ten-days-old at time of air.
But I have to wonder if this interview was not given during Mitt’s spate of bad press to offset some of the potential controversey deriving from public interpretation of Mormon theology.
Did Mitt make these statements to give the impression that some LDS doctrines are fallible?
Don’t all religious people ascribe some degree of fallibility to their church and its doctrines?
Some Christians do not take every word of their religion as direct gospel. Why should Mitt be held to any higher standard of religious adherence?
If I only go to church on Easter and Christmas, can I still be a Christian? If I think the world took more than 7 days to create, am I unfaithful?
Mitt is the master of all politicians. It sucks to see him contort himself. I find him very compelling as a candidate, but I don’t think I’m getting a genuine sense of who he is, which is really too bad.
The Race Card on December 29, 2007 at 3:45 PM
We aren’t nominating a theologian–oops, unless its Huck. Maybe Mitt’s knowledge of Mormonism should be between him, his God, and his Sunday school teacher. Unless, as Mitt claimed, “freedom requires religion” and therefore those who want freedom better be up to speed on their religion.
If Mitt and Huck want to argue over their imaginary friends, I’ll hang with whichever “Jessica” isn’t with Professor Blather. In the meantime these religion quizzes help either Fred or McCain.
dedalus on December 29, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 3:42 PM
LOL. I figuratively exist just like I marched with MLK in my heart… or perhaps in a prior life… arm in arm with George Romney… at another location… damn you, there was a guy named King there so it counts
blackrepublican on December 29, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Blather,
Where Mitt erred was answering the inappropriate question which was asked of him by the nosy interviewer. He should have told her it was none of her freaking business, but maybe he’s too polite for that.
I don’t think that Bryan properly conveyed what Mitt said. There were a few words that got lost in the translation when Bryan said:
If you think Mitt’s theological views matter so much, you go right ahead and dwell on this. No doubt there are many who want to join you in this.
Include me out.
Buy Danish on December 29, 2007 at 3:57 PM
This is exactly what he is doing. This isn’t going to hurt Mitt with anyone who is already on his side and anyone who is undecided. We all know who tries to make hay out of this and in that case, who really cares? They are only important unto themselves.
And Hillary. She can’t live without them.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 3:57 PM
dedalus on December 29, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I call the remaining Jessica…
blackrepublican on December 29, 2007 at 3:57 PM
If Huck is a champion of Christianity, I say bring back Jim Bakker.
Must. Find. Pepto. Bismol.
silverfox on December 29, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Oh brother, yet another faux controversy surrounding Mitt Romney. Hasn’t it been fairly obvious this entire time, even to his critics, that he will not move away from his religion? If you don’t understand this perhaps you need to read (re-read?) his speech Faith in America. Lol @ the very idea of Mitt moving away from his religion for politics, especially this late in the game.
Patriot33 on December 29, 2007 at 3:59 PM
You gotta be kidding. By definition, a “masterful politician” wouldn’t keep stepping into these easily avoidable piles of doggy-doo. He (or his advisers) are painfully inept.
That’s the only issue I care about. His religion is his business.
Well, if you’re going to delve into the theology, that isn’t the right analogy.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Mormons - but as I understand it the fundamental point of the faith is that God appeared to Joseph Smith and created a new Christian Testament - that the Book of Mormon is God’s latest Word. In fact, I happen to own said Book thanks to a couple friendly lads in button-down shirts … and on the cover is printed “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”
The existence of that Testament IS Mormonism. The proper analogy is obviously to ask whether someone who does not acknowledge the divinity of Christ - of the existence of THAT New Testament - is a Christian?
It seems self-evident that you can disbelieve quite a bit of doctrine … or rarely go to church … and still be a Christian. But you kinda gotta believe that part, don’t you?
And to be a Mormon, that one singular fact - that Joseph Smith received a New Testament of Christ - seems the baseline qualification. Isn’t it?
That’s why this is newsworthy. If Mitt likes drinking caffeine or thinks polygamy was always wrong or disapproves of pre-1978 church doctrine, who cares? In fact, good for him.
But the answer to this particular question should have had a simple one word affirmative answer.
But of course, giving straight-forward answers about anything, even something this simple, is apparently Mitt’s Achilles’ heel, and its why some of us lost our taste for the Mittster.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Mitt should say ” I am an American who is seeking to be another American President and not the first Mormon President,” and then we can move on to fretting about him so clearly distancing himself from the Reagan/Bush admin and his wife donating to Planned Parenthood.
silverfox on December 29, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I should be more clear. Mitt is always in character. He is unrelenting in always being a politician. By mastery, I mean he has demonstrated his technique, and it is always political.
It’s kinda like many some martial arts. You have to demonstrate mastery in the katas, or forms in order to advance levels. But just knowing the katas does not mean you won’t get your ass kicked.
Mitt has a black belt in word judo. But he still gets beat up.
The Race Card on December 29, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Mitt did say that in his speech on faith in America.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 4:26 PM
First people didn’t trust Mitt because he believes a wacky religion. Now he’s in trouble for possibly not believeing every word of it.
It’s pretty common for people not to be able to state the fine distinctions in the theology of their church. It took mainline Christians hundreds of years to sort out the divinity of Christ, and then only when it became the state religion and they could just vote and excommunicate those who disagreed.
I think Mitt’s answer could have been rephrased as, “that’s not very likely is it?”
pedestrian on December 29, 2007 at 4:28 PM
At last we agree on something.
Yes, he should have told her to MYOB.
Or just said “I’m a Mormon” and left it at that.
“Politeness,” if that’s what you wanna call it, is killing him.
But then you have to toss out that non-existent straw man yet again.
Let me try one final time, using non-Romneyesque language, to see if I can get you to quit tossing out this intellectually dishonest canard:
I do not care about Mitt’s theological views.
As far as I know, almost nobody here cares much about his views, assuming he governs secularly.
What we care about is his seemingly endless inability to speak plainly, to speak honestly, and his inability to avoid stupid problems exactly like this one.
He’s YOUR guy. Wouldn’t YOU like to see him cut it out? To start speaking simply and directly?
Or do you actually like the endless discussions of what Mitt said or did, what he actually meant, and how each vague and ambiguous word can be interpreted? Do you actually enjoy having to defend “I’m a lifelong hunter” and “I saw my Dad march with King?”
Even if we all turn our brains off and pretend that wild spin you offered on those embarrassments is actually true - don’t you get sick of having to explain everything the man says? Or is the Kool-Aid so strong you can’t even acknowledge that he has a bit of a problem with speaking his mind without the quibbling?
Do you really not recognize that just the fact that these conversations exist is killing the guy? And that the fact that he keeps creating the NEED for you to spin so ridiculously is just decimating his candidacy?
How about a simple yes or no answer from you? Yes or no - would you like to see Romney offer some straight talk? Yes or no - wouldn’t you like to see he and his advisers eliminate these stupid controversies?
I don’t care about his faith. I repeat - pay attention - I do NOT care about his faith. I’m asking for a little honesty and consistency and integrity. Is that too much to ask?
And if that too much - how about just a little political aptitude? The update up there is classic Mitt - wouldn’t it be nice if the man could learn to speak clearly so he didn’t have to issue constant updates spinning just about everything?
This man may be our candidate in the general, he may be the only thing between us and President Hillary. Is it really too much for me to expect that he start learning to quit doing this to himself, and to us?
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Natalie Jacobson famously asked the conservative Democrat gubanatorial candidate John Silber about women working, and he said it causes stress. That was enough to get the Republican Bill Weld elected, and started the string of four Reublican governers of Massachusetts. It was also the only time I have ever voted for a Democrat.
pedestrian on December 29, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I saw it as Mitt trying to laugh off an inappropriate question, but this is (yet) another example of Romney not doing that well with off the cuff responses.
I’d prefer a candidate whose responses don’t thud so often. I’d be happier with “Bushisms” (mispronouncitating words) that have some substance to them, than with too-glib-by-half responses that feel more like a duck.
I think Romney would govern well as president. But it’s painful watching him campaign at times.
sulla on December 29, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Much better said than I. Romney’s religion isn’t the point - your post is the point.
The sooner Mitt’s supporters acknowledge the truth of what you wrote, and begin fixing the problem, the better for all of us.
Ignoring that truth - or spinning it - helps no one. Except maybe Hillary Clinton.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Gentlemen, I adore your comments (not just these). The singular item I consistently hold against Mr. Romney (Buy Danish, csdeven, PKennedy, and others “rabidly in love”, I’ll vote for him if he’s the man standing) is his Clintonesque slickness.
If Prof. Blather’s scenario plays out, we’ll be spinning with Clintonesque²(squared, if it doesn’t show well). One is more than plenty, thank you.
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 4:51 PM
That is charitable of you. But a main tenet of the LDS faith is the vision JS had in the sacred grove where God spoke to him face to face. What Mitt was doing is exactly what Sebastian said here……
The guy will never win over those who have already made up their minds, and I’m sure he doesn’t feel the need to waste his time on them. His goal is to keep the support he has and to convince the undecideds he isn’t going to defer to the LDS leadership when he is president.
Had Mitt said the prophets spoke to God, there would be a segment of the population that would ask him why he wouldn’t listen to the man who speaks to god on a regular basis and would actually try to spin it into another slam on him. Those same people are slamming him today for not being committed enough. Mitt is smart enough to know to ignore people like that.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 4:55 PM
You know, from a selfish perspective, that’s what I fear most: if Romney doesn’t find a way to fix his Clintonian weasel ways … and if he does get the nomination … I may have to defend him six months from now.
It may be me that has to offer up some ridiculous spin for some painful stupidity Romney offers.
I’d really rather not be put in that position.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 4:58 PM
The only (proper) response by all candidates, left/right, to any questions on religion, would be “My beliefs, yours, and all others’, are personal. Let’s keep them this way. As president, if I’m fortunate enough to gain the American people’s trust for this job, I will govern as a secularist would”.
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Check this out. One of the best appreciations of Mormons from an outside perspective I’ve recently read.
WasatchMan on December 29, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 4:58 PM
This, and it w/b harder to single out and deride her slickness.
I want her to be the nominee, but I doubt she’ll be it. I think it will be Obama.
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Which works quite well, once you define “one of,” “pre-eminent” in the context of Mormon hierarchy, “says,” “some others,” then diagram the phrase “leave it at” and correctly apply it to “because.”
Other than that, I’m completely satisfied.
But the blimp does sound like a pretty good idea right now.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 5:05 PM
I’d disagree with that. Romney is Clintonian in his word dancing but lacks the Clintonesque skill. He reminds me of Al Gore in that respect–he knows there’s dancing to be done, but his rhythm is off.
sulla on December 29, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Then you should meet my Dad or my brother (who has been studying to become a Roman Catholic priest for the last 10+ years.)
While I am no longer a Catholic, I have a Dad that loves to invite people into his house when they knock on his door to “educate him” him about religion.
It is very commicial to watch, about 10 minutes into the “debate” the visitors are squirming trying to find a way to make an exit.
Hell if it were not for the marriage/kids thing my dad could have been the next pope.
Then there is my brother, currently in Rome, who has been studying for the last 10 years to become a priest (3+ years to go).
Not to mention my other brothers/sisters. Who are very knowledgeable about religion, and can debate anyone also.
Then there is me, (every family needs a black sheep), I will put my Dad/Brother against anyone when it comes to a debate about religion.
I will stick with F-15’s and aircraft in general however.
F15Mech on December 29, 2007 at 5:06 PM
I like.
What’s funny is that if one of the candidates had the sack to do that, I think others might follow suit.
The Race Card on December 29, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Heh, that’s why I like you so much :)
sulla on December 29, 2007 at 5:05 PM
sulla, I don’t believe in too much but I believe in “if it’s too good to be true, it usually is”.
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 5:08 PM
He needs to quit practicing the katas and spend more time free sparring on the mats. He keeps missing easy throws and holds. And he just got choked out by a girl.
He’s either really rusty - or his sensei sucks. Or both.
And if you think he’s getting beat up now, wait until the general. When he has to face the Kobra Kai without Mr. Miyagi to help him.
Mitt who rearn say yes no simple question, accomprish anything.
I’m Professor Blather, and I approve of this mixed martial metaphor.
And again, Sulla nails it in three sentences.
It’s one thing to be Clintonian, but you better be slick enough to pull it off. Mitt isn’t.
I have a feeling that Democrats watching Kerry win the nomination in 2004 felt very much like I do right now. Watching the “electable” guy with the good hair and permanent foot-in-mouth disease win out over candidates with principle.
And what the hell is it with Massachusetts, anyway?
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Door open…
the Patriots.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 5:13 PM
LOL what can I say I know my limits.
F15Mech on December 29, 2007 at 5:15 PM
I wonder if anyone in the Romney camp has considered hiring somebody to define the words and diagram the sentences before Romney speaks, instead of after?
Or just buy him a blimp. A big one. With machine guns and rocket pods.
Then, whenever the poor guy starts getting stymied answering a question … he can just say: “Hey, have you seen my blimp?”
Yeah, I thought about going there … but then figured it’d be best to wait until after tonight’s game.
Hey! Look at my blimp!
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 5:15 PM
actually have rather enjoyed your comments. Wasn’t quite sure where you started out but the finish has been a good read.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Speaking of which, is their going to be a open thread for the game?
F15Mech on December 29, 2007 at 5:18 PM
The only truthful answer is they would all say “I have a slimy blob of bloody goop in my skull and I do whatever it says.”
pedestrian on December 29, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Dude! Great article!
That bit about baptizing the dead is fascinating. As is this part about ex-Mormons:
But the best thing? That part about Mormon’s inventing Battlestar Galactica! And the secret handshakes is golden stuff.
For Joseph Smith’s sake, if you’re going to talk about your religion, highlight the good stuff. Battlestar Galactica, man. That’s a million geek votes right there.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Yes, it should have been an easy answer. If God spoke to me and told me to do something contrary to what I’d been planning or thought best, would I do it as President? Of course the answer is “Yes.”
But how do the rest of us know it was, you know, really God?
George Bush is quoted as saying God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Richard Roberts say God insisted that he resign as President of Oral Roberts University. Joseph Smith says God told him all other religions were wrong.
If Romney had said Yes, imagine the headlines.
Now we’re only considering his commitment to Mormonism, which we shouldn’t be. But if he’d said Yes, we’d be considering his mental stability. Although some might say those weren’t mutually exclusive.
Sebastian on December 29, 2007 at 5:32 PM
SECOND LOOK AT KATIE SACKHOFF!!
Purple Fury on December 29, 2007 at 5:32 PM
When most of the people that you want to vote for you, i.e. Christians, belong to an abomination what’s a candidate to do?
Mojave Mark on December 29, 2007 at 5:56 PM
LOL
Jews have the old testament, Christians have the new testament , the Mormans have Battlestar Galactica.
Does anyone see a problem here?
F15Mech on December 29, 2007 at 5:56 PM
If you’re going to send salesmen door to door telling the world that you represent God’s only true faith and that all other religions,faiths and Christian sects are false, no matter how sincere, faithful and charitable they are, then you better be ready to defend that claim at every turn.
Beto Ochoa on December 29, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Spin so fast you drill through twelve floors.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Is this an election for President of the United States or an election for High Priest of the United States?
It is getting pretty confusing here abouts.
MB4 on December 29, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Wait til the day we get a Muslim candidate.
wccawa on December 29, 2007 at 6:03 PM
When it comes to religion, apparently the answer is: weasel a lot and never give a simple, straight answer. Which becomes a little more understandable if that quote you provided is accurate.
Too bad we can’t just keep divisive religion out of politics.
Uh, yeah. Jews and Christians got a raw deal.
It’s Battlestar Galactica, man.
Professor Blather on December 29, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »