Sure looks like Romney’s running in 2012

posted at 7:51 pm on February 15, 2010 by Allahpundit

Just from the perspective of blogworthy content, I’m thrilled. A Huck vs. Palin race would be fascinating, but having Mitt in the mix all but guarantees a “centrist elites vs. populist conservatives” storyline for the nomination. Can’t. Wait.

One of the first big moves of 2012 — “Mitt Romney Names Matt Rhoades PAC Executive Director: BOSTON — Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC announced today that Matt Rhoades, who has held senior positions on major presidential campaigns and at the Republican National Committee, will serve as the PAC’s executive director. … ‘He’s been a friend and an adviser for several years now and I’m pleased that he has agreed to run the day-to-day operations of my Free and Strong America PAC. He shares with me the view that 2010 is going to be a critical election year, with many races and lots of opportunities to elect Republican candidates,’ said Governor Romney.

“Rhoades is currently a Vice President with DCI Group … He replaces Peter Flaherty, who will become a Senior Adviser to the PAC. He previously served as Communications Director for Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign … During the 2006 election cycle, Rhoades was a Deputy Communications Director in charge of research for the Republican National Committee. He also was Research Director for the 2004 Bush/Cheney re-election campaign. Rhoades also has held the position of White House Liaison at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in the Bush Administration.

According to Ben Smith, who’s reading this as a surefire sign that Mitt’s in, Rhoades also has a pipeline to Drudge. Consider this a follow-up to last night’s Quotes of the Day that showcased the makings of a bold Romney gambit: A path to the nomination that would concede the south to whomever emerges from a Huck/Palin bloodbath and focus instead on winning New Hampshire and Michigan early and then cleaning up in the coastal states. (Don’t laugh: Scott Brown’s win reportedly has Republicans coming out of the woodwork in blue New England.) I find it hard to fathom losing Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida to an opponent and then cleaning up on Super Tuesday, so expect Team Mitt to quietly push behind the scenes for bluer states to move their own primaries up to help their guy build a little early mo.

Here’s Ron Brownstein from this a.m.’s “Morning Joe” handicapping a Romney/Palin white collar/blue collar class warfare clusterfark in the primary. My heart says “stop” but my traffic sensibility cries “proceed.” Exit question: Are Huck and Palin going to come to some sort of understanding before the primaries that only one of them should run? If they both jump in and draw off each other, it leaves Romney alone to skate through by cleaning up with centrists. And Huck, at least, would probably find that prospect intolerable.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4 5

Conservative Samizdat on February 16, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Yes, I read it. Did you not read my posts? How about the sites I linked? I acknowledged that Mitt didn’t put the initial coverage into the bill. But the court imposed the mandate to cover MEDICALLY NECESSARY abortions. RomneyCare covers all abortion, every last one, on demand. Some claim he vetoed it, but I can’t find a single source to prove it. Not one. Frankly, as a truly pro-life person, he should have rejected the entire bill rather than cave to that, assuming he was caving and not doing exactly as he intended. From his past, that is quite an assumption.

The sarahtards are very active today.

Falz on February 16, 2010 at 3:53 PM

finally, some intelligent posts!

drballard on February 16, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Yeah, I see your point. That adds so much intelligent discourse. /s

And by all means, lets throw Sarah Palin into a discussion on Romney’s strengths and weaknesses. One might think it is because his strengths are a bit lacking so his supporters best cloud the issue. Oh, look, Sarah did something baaadddd…

Okay, so she’s not perfect. I’m probably leaning toward her now, but resent the implication that I’m a ‘sarahtard’ just because I have issues with Romney’s record. I have issues with hers as well, and I’m very much liking what I hear about Rubio, but don’t see him running so soon. Anyway, can we dispense with the name calling. I’d rather talk about Romney as this is a thread on him running and we don’t even know for a fact that Sarah or anyone else is.

pannw on February 16, 2010 at 4:50 PM

well spoken, g2825m. And God bless you for serving.

drballard on February 16, 2010 at 5:13 PM

I take it you are not a Christian, then? Because you seem to have something in your eye.

entropent on February 16, 2010 at 10:19 AM

So you think someone should just allow anyone to call them names and not defend themselves?
My first post was from 8:35 (right2bright on February 16, 2010 at 8:35 AM) this morning, read it, it has nothing to do with religion…then this guy, drballard, pops up and makes accusations, dragging religion into it…he is a fool and a liar, I don’t have any problem putting a liar in his place.
If he can show me where I mentioned religion first, where my post had anything to do with mormon’s, then let’s see him point it out.
Trying to win an argument by claiming someone is a bigot is right out of playbook that I don’t play by.
He can’t shut me up by lying about me…he hates it that I don’t respect the founders of a religion…imagine him thinking I am a bigot when I have always supported Mitt for a cabinet position or VP (for the past 18 months he won’t find a thread that doesn’t state that from me)…ballard is a twisted man that is consumed by hate, he should let it go, and read my posts concerning Mitt’s poor performance, which ballard has not defended.
He is angry because I have posted truth, and he is embarrassed by the truth…

right2bright on February 16, 2010 at 5:24 PM

The thing about Mitt is that you can find him supporting just about anything.
You can find him supporting abortion, and not.
You can find him supporting gun laws, and not supporting them.
You can find him supporting raising taxes (fees), or not.
Support stem cell research, not.
Support national health care, not.
Bailouts, yes and no.
About most everything one can find a quote, a bill, for either side of many issues, which is just the point.
Is he a conservative, or not? In speeches he is, in debate is isn’t…
He says he is a conservative, then you look at his record, and the defense is “but he was in a liberal state, he had to go along”…maybe valid, maybe not. But he isn’t there now, and he seems not to have changed much.
If he was consistent for just 12 months, as I stated 2 years ago, then we could support him…but what are we supporting?
No one can say what he really stands for, because someone else can find an actual action or quote that shows he had an opposing view.

right2bright on February 16, 2010 at 5:33 PM

I will vote for anyone who is not Obama. I will show up to vote, holding my nose or not. Obama must be removed. That’s all…………..

adamsmith on February 16, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Bottom line: I’ll support the GOP candidate in the fall election, whether it is Romney, Palin, some guy we have yet to hear about, or the ghost of Ronald Reagan himself.

The main thing is that Obama has to go, and the sooner we can undo the damage of his party, the better.

itzWicks on February 16, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Oh well, no matter. We know she is more pro-life than Mitt because…well….just because we know she is!!11!11!!1!!

rockmom on February 16, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Uh, no, ignoramus, it’s because she chose not to abort her own child when it would have been expedient to do so. And that speaks more to her pro life creds than just words.

What a maroon.

atheling on February 16, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Nice Bill Pullman shot.

Coronagold on February 16, 2010 at 9:01 PM

ok right2bright, hows this- who on this blog brought up “burning in the bosom” ?that would be you
Who said “I dont hate mormons, I just think their leaders were pedophiles”? that would be you
Who has brought up actual policy positions and facts? that would be me.
Who made a long, innacurate laundry list of “Romeny was for this before against it” utter devoid of actual fact? That would be you.
Why don’t you use fact reported by an organization that doesn’t have an axe to grind? Why won’t you debate actual accomplishment of respective candidates? Either, you’re dumber that a bag of hammers, a liar who was so traumatized by the existance of someone who you differ with theologically that you won’t even admit to bringing up religion every damn Romney post (see 1st point), or a lefty troll. Please note how pro-Romney people never bring up other candidates odd religious beliefs. Only you. So, were you beaten up by mormons, or just jealous of achievers?

drballard on February 16, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Oh well, no matter. We know she is more pro-life than Mitt because…well….just because we know she is!!11!11!!1!!
rockmom on February 16, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told an antiabortion audience in Indiana on Thursday night that, “for a fleeting moment,” she considered having an abortion after learning that her son Trig would have Down syndrome.

Nobody is perfect. Stop saying Sarah is more Pro Life than Mitt.

scotash on February 16, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Only you. So, were you beaten up by mormons, or just jealous of achievers?

drballard on February 16, 2010 at 10:52 PM

You are the one who brought religion into this, read my first post and see if there is any religious reference. Now go down and look at your tirade.
You don’t see that? You really don’t?
Here let me help you:

right2bright on February 16, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Notice no religious context, none and I certainly didn’t call you any names.
Now look at your post, your answer to mine:

Ok, why the hell is right2bright still here? The loons of the right and left come out when Romney is mentioned- look at these comments…drballard on February 16, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Then tries to tie me into some weirdo blog. And of course you call Huck a bigot, which seems to be your favorite word, along with other groups who like to throw that word around.
But you are upset because I think that Mitt is only good enough to be a VP or a ranking cabinet member…man you got you a case of man-love.

Who said “I dont hate mormons, I just think their leaders were pedophiles”? that would be you

Then you resort to lies, show me where I stated that…even after I tried to correct you for passing out that lie.
I was very specific, I said founders, and that is where you and I have a disagreement, you think taking a child bride in our society is Godly, I abhor it. You dig on those kid brides, I don’t…
ummmm policy positions, I think I pretty much summed it up by stating that you could find a quote from him on either side of several issues that I listed.
You are the one obsessed by religion, you stalk me every time I post…and yes I have always said that someone like Huck should leave his religion in the pew.
I have posted on this for years, religion and politics do not mix if you are a leader…you can’t serve two masters, as someone you don’t know once stated.
Be thankful I never brought up the fact that Mitt’s daddy worked on the committee that created special compensation for mormon’s on a mission overseas, they couldn’t be drafted during the Vietnam war…so Mitt served his mission in that horrible country of France…ahhhhh, the life of privilege, but he was safe, oui? I wonder if someone died taking his place…probably not.
Instead I brought out the horrible incident of the woman killed in the Big Dig, and Mitt giving Bechtel a fine, for being responsible, of a couple of thousand dollars…then awarded them a major contract for millions…look at Bechtel and look at the support they have given him since…Mitt is a politician, and that’s what we get, he does some good, he does some bad, he helps his friends, his friends help him…he is just another politician, raised by a politician, and schooled to be one, and that is what he should be.

right2bright on February 17, 2010 at 1:55 AM

scotash on February 16, 2010 at 11:29 PM

And for any number of fleeting moments, I’ve wanted to strangle my children, poison my husband and run any number of people off the road for being idiots. But I haven’t ever done it. In our culture, when the doctor is the first one to recommend abortion to ‘a mother of advanced years’, especially when tests come back less than perfect, when she is at her absolute most vulnerable, it would be strange for a woman not to have the notion flit through her mind, for a fleeting moment, how nice it would be to just make it all go away. That isn’t exactly giving something serious consideration, but regardless, the fact is, she didn’t. She knew it was the wrong thing to do and she did what was right. I don’t think we can say the same about Mitt. She isn’t nearly as perfect on life issues as I’d like, but until the day Sarah signs legislation forcing me to pay for other peoples ELECTIVE abortions (of course all are elective, but for the sake of argument we’ll pretend some are necessary) I will not call them equally anti-life.

Mitt did some good things for the pro-life side, but that healthcare plan, including the permanent seat for Planned Parenthood, was a HUGE mistake, as was not protecting religious freedom and cozying up to the homosexual agenda. Yes, I know…but he was in Massachusetts…. I don’t care where he was. He could have kept the funding for the youth program at its previous level instead of doubling it. He could have left the Boy Scouts alone, he could have defended the Church; it isn’t as if he didn’t have the Constitution to back him up… But he didn’t do the right thing.

pannw on February 17, 2010 at 9:17 AM

pannw on February 17, 2010 at 9:17 AM

If he had been supportive of other candidates, honestly supportive, then he would be a lot more respected.
He was looking out for his future, and did not want to support anyone earnestly, because he knew that would dilute his opportunity to run himself.
Being a team player is what we need, not some political hack who has only his self interest at heart.
That is why I say he would be okay to be a VP for four years, to teach him how to play with others. There is nothing wrong with being a servant to your country or your party.
Once he proves he can be trusted as a team player, can be trusted to carry a message for more then a few months, then he can run for the top job…but just being a “Romney” and having a few bucks does not automatically place you in line for the job…this isn’t some type of position that length of time, and family tree places makes it a right to have that job.

right2bright on February 17, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Boy right2bright, I sure am glad you didn’t bring any of those things up about Romney’s dad….that you just brought up. Like Huckabee not showing that dirty commercial about Mitt, right before he showed it to the press. Wow. Doesn’t the Bible have something to say about lying? And the obsession you have about romney- how much of your time have you spent that you have to go looking into a candidates father to find dirt? Kinda creepy. Still havn’t shared why you hate mormons yet. Hmm. And that you dont see that telling people they follow pedophiles as an insult. Hmm, howzabout I make up crazy shit about baptist ministers, and spread that around. Would you find that insulting? I bet you would. Tell you what, you show a link to a site that doesn’t have an axe to grind, showing mormon leaders to be pedophiles, and we’ll talk. Tell you what, you show a link showing where that’s even relevant to picking a commander in chief, I’ll pay you$1000. Now, linking to a religious website is no fair, because like you said, politics and religion should be seperate. Didn’t think so, jackass.

drballard on February 17, 2010 at 12:00 PM

And as for Romney not supporting other candidates, you’re so full of shit your eyes are brown. Who did Scott Brown thank after his family? We’d still have a dem supermajority of Romney hadn’t supported Brown. What did you do? Nothing. Whose been supporting repubs this whole cycle? What have you done? Typing slanderous things about fellow republicans so you can feel good about yourself. Dip.

drballard on February 17, 2010 at 12:03 PM

the real reason you obsess over him is obvious in your insults- sheer envy. You dont like his money, his looks, his success. What have you ever accomplished in your life?

drballard on February 17, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I love the comments on this topic. As for me,simply put, many “feel good” folks love Romney and most conservatives don’t trust him.

I don’t want religion brought into the discussion, but my experience tells me that more than a few in the electorate will reject Romney because he is a Mormon, and that’s too bad.

tomshup on February 17, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Hey, there’s issues I don’t agree with romney on- his assault weapons stand, and previous aborting stand. Personally, I wish he’d be meaner- huckabee deserves a slap. But there’s no one on earth that is exactly what we want. These kooks that demand ideological perfection choose loons like ron paul. The irony is that most of these kooks scream about things being unconstitutional, yet are willing to ignore article VI of the Constitution itself when choosing the chief enforcer of the constitution. Funny, huh?

drballard on February 17, 2010 at 12:33 PM

right2bright on February 17, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Meh…I don’t really care at this point how well he plays with others. My issue is how well he stood up to others (and apparently he didn’t) or how well he did as the leader of others. Being a team player is important, but we are talking team leader here. Either he caved to the demands of liberals, ie he’s a weak leader, or he did as he believed he should, in which case I really disagree with his values. Of course, it could just be that he doesn’t know what he believes and simply does what is politically expedient. Whatever, it doesn’t inspire my confidence. That’s my problem with Mitt.

pannw on February 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM

fair enough, pannw

drballard on February 17, 2010 at 1:10 PM

rockmom on February 16, 2010 at 10:33 AM

I disagree. That’s not the MO of the left or their willing minions in the media. They are not content to ignore those they fear will give them a run for their money at election time; they seek to destroy these opponents, assassinate their character, and harass them and their families relentlessly until they are beaten down and retreat (if they can push them that far). This has been part of the liberal playbook for decades. Successful conservative candidates are either stupid rubes who want to nuke the planet, or they’re evil powerful corporate geniuses. Candidates who are not characterized thusly are not on their radar screens. They may believe Romney has the potential to be a formidable opponent but until the public starts showing an interest in him, they aren’t going to bother expending energy tearing him down. I’ve no doubt if he emerges as the front runner, one of the aforementioned narratives will be attached to him and they will attempt to destroy him as they did Reagan and are now doing to Sarah Palin. But they don’t bash Palin 24/7 for the sheer sport of it. Her populist appeal gives them night sweats, as well it should. The last Republican to have that sort of connection with the electorate served two successful terms in the White House and his legacy remains strong to this day. They certainly don’t want to see that happen again.

NoLeftTurn on February 17, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Of course, it could just be that he doesn’t know what he believes and simply does what is politically expedient. Whatever, it doesn’t inspire my confidence. That’s my problem with Mitt.

pannw on February 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM

And that was my original thrust, before I was sidetracked by a loon.
Mitt has not made it clear where he stands on many issues…our national leaders needs to be consistent, you can waver as a gov, you can be a liberal and be a governor, but we see what has happened being liberal and the president.
What I meant by team player, is that even a leader has to work with his team. And that is even the ones he doesn’t like, Mitt showed how much of a team leader he was with Palin; zero. She is an obstacle to his success, doesn’t matter that she is is a great representative, she is in his way.
Leaders learn to lead, even the distractors; Reagan was a great example of that.
But your main point is right on…He knows what he believes in, he just doesn’t have the huevos to state it…and we need someone who states the truth, then we decide whether we want him as president or not.
I don’t want another leader testing the waters, or changing his position depending on who his audience is.

right2bright on February 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Oh shut the hell up right2bright. you have yet to answer any questions I asked you. Until you do, no one with a brain will listen to you. and, you’re showing yourself to be a very poor Christian

drballard on February 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM

you’re showing yourself to be a very poor Christian

drballard on February 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM

It isn’t about being a Christian at all! You seem incapable of understanding that. Mitt Romney’s religion is of interest to some mormoms and those who dislike mormoms. The rest of us only care about his record in office, and that record stinks!

sharrukin on February 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM

The rest of us only care about his record in office, and that record stinks!

sharrukin on February 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM

At least weak, until he decides to actually make his views, what he really believes, known.
He is an intelligent, well traveled, politically savvy guy…but he is all over the board on the issues.
His father trained him well for “old school” politics, but we aren’t old school, we want up front honesty.
That is why Brown was supported, was he conservative? No, but he didn’t try to hide that fact.
Mitt is like the guy who sells Shaklee or Quixtar whatever they call themselves now, they never tell you what they are doing until you get to their “party”.

right2bright on February 17, 2010 at 6:31 PM

The rest of us only care about his record in office, and that record stinks!

sharrukin on February 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM

A

t least weak, until he decides to actually make his views, what he really believes, known.
He is an intelligent, well traveled, politically savvy guy…but he is all over the board on the issues.
His father trained him well for “old school” politics, but we aren’t old school, we want up front honesty.

right2bright on February 17, 2010 at 6:31 PM

And how is anyone supposed to credit the latest version of Mitt Romney as true? What does he really believe? Does anyone actually know? That sort of politician tends to blow in the Liberal wind and the wind that can be summoned up by the MSM, academics and the DC insiders can only be resisted by someone who has well grounded principles.

sharrukin on February 17, 2010 at 7:04 PM

We could do worse than Romney…but we could also do a lot better, too.

Cylor on February 17, 2010 at 7:32 PM

The rest of us only care about his record in office, and that record stinks!

sharrukin on February 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM

The idea the Mitt Romney was a poor governor is wrong. When he left my state we had $3 billion surplus and money in our rainey day fund. He streamlined and cut government programs. He instituted our tax free holiday that we had every August until the current governor put an end to it. Romney did not even take a salary. I have known Mitt Romney as the governor of my state, the presidential candidate, and the statesman that he has become today. He has been consistent throughout. The only change….I repeat the only change Romney has had was becoming pro-life.

I thought the pro-life movement was out to convince people to choose on the side of life. To convert pro-choicers to pro-lifer’s. It seems that when Mitt Romney does it; he’s considered a political opportunist or a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Lest I remind you all that Ronald Reagan was pro-choice at one point as was George H.W. Bush. Their past did not hold them back from being elected as POTUS.

This narrative that Mitt Romney is a flip flopper, a fake, a political opportunist has to end. This narrative started with John McCain to beat Romney and is used by his critics today. It’s been 2 years since Romney dropped out in the primaries. It’s been more than 5 years since Romney joined the pro-life movement. During that time he has been a staunch advocate. The critics have to move on. If you want more info on Mitt Romney and his views ask any Mitt supporter or just read his new book: ‘No Apology: The Case For American Greatness’.

SED on February 17, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Is it just me, or does Allahpundit sound anti Romney?? Just remember how quickly the Hillary Dems united behind the Obama Dems. We need to take heed conservatives. I for one like BOTH Palin and Romney and would support either one. I will NOT support Hucksterbee….I would like to see a Romney / Palin ticket.

dalej78 on February 17, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Yes, I’ll vote for this socialist appeaser over the socialist himself.

V-rod on February 18, 2010 at 1:57 AM

Vote for Romney 2012!

Obama will be the King!

TheAlamos on February 18, 2010 at 4:00 AM

The critics have to move on. If you want more info on Mitt Romney and his views ask any Mitt supporter or just read his new book: ‘No Apology: The Case For American Greatness’.

SED on February 17, 2010 at 8:27 PM

The last place you look for guidance on a person, is a book they write about themselves…do you think that book (or any book written by a politician about themselves) is an honest reflection.
Yeah, he had a surplus, after raising “fees”. Fees are the most insidious of all taxes, they are never voted on, they are imposed. And usually impact the most upon the “least” among us.
His health care bill is a milstone around conservatives everywhere fighting against national health care. He resolved the Big Dig, after rewarding his cronies (who were found guilty of negligence leading to the death of a mother) with multi million dollar contracts (I have detailed this issue many times). He can talk about abortion all he wants, his action supported abortion.
Mitts followers problems are that they listen to him, respect him, consider him a man of honor, but you don’t look at what he has actually done. Look at his works, not his words. Having a balanced budget is of no use if you balance it on the backs of the working man…that is what liberals do.

I would like to see a Romney / Palin ticket.

dalej78 on February 17, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Palin/Romney…you mistakenly reversed those…Romney cannot win a national ticket (as proven), the people do not follow him…business leaders do (for obvious reasons, follow the money), but generally people don’t trust him.

right2bright on February 18, 2010 at 7:10 AM

Lest I remind you all that Ronald Reagan was pro-choice at one point as was George H.W. Bush. Their past did not hold them back from being elected as POTUS.

They admitted they were and they changed…Mitt, as his political instincts tell him to, denies he was anything but anti-abortion, which goes to character.

right2bright on February 18, 2010 at 7:13 AM

GREAT! ANOTHER NEOCON JERK!

You sure know how to pick them…NOT!

BobAnthony on February 18, 2010 at 7:40 AM

Either, you’re dumber that a bag of hammers, a liar who was so traumatized by the existance of someone who you differ with theologically that you won’t even admit to bringing up religion every damn Romney post (see 1st point)

drballard on February 16, 2010 at 10:52 PM

right2bright is very passive aggressive.

He attacks the Mormon faith every chance he gets whenever Mitt’s name comes up on Hot Air and then he denies it.

Its the classic passive-aggressive behavior.

how much of your time have you spent that you have to go looking into a candidates father to find dirt? Kinda creepy.

drballard on February 17, 2010 at 12:00 PM

I find it creepy.

right2bright either has psychological issues with Mitt Romney or Mormonism. Or both. I’m not sure.

Conservative Samizdat on February 18, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Particularly with religion. As I said, the reality is that you cannot believe your own religion and not think other religions are fraudulent, or else you don’t really believe your religion’s teachings. Almost every religion claims to be the only true religion. Thus, by definition, you must believe other religions are hoaxes.

Monkeytoe on February 16, 2010 at 10:31 AM

I disagree.

That is one way to draw conclusions about your religion v. everyone else’s religion.

I don’t think that everyone else’s religion’s is 100% false and a complete hoax.

The the official view of the LDS Church is that other Churches are not 100% false or hoaxes. Here is a “neutral” site that sums up how the Mormon Church feels about other religions. The BBC has a good summary here. Here is page from the Official LDS website that explains the official stance on other religions.

There is much good and truths that other religions have. Of course, I also have my doctrinal disagreements with other faiths but I am the “cup is half full” kind of guy and I try to see the good and truth that are in other people’s faith.

So, I reject the idea that all other Churches are 100% hoaxes and false.

Conservative Samizdat on February 18, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5