digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Mitt Romney: It's Not His Religion, its His Politics

hearmythunder.org — Living in the Salt Lake Valley I have had the opportunity to discuss the upcoming primary election with many people. Literally dozens have chided me for not supporting Mitt Romney for President in 2008. It must be understood by these well intentioned faithful, his religion is no problem, the problem is his poor political views!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sethosayher, on 10/17/2007, -8/+37This is a testimony to the irrational role faith plays in choosing a Presidential Candidate. Since when did believing in the same God as someone qualify someone to run the country? I wonder how many Americans realize that some of our founding fathers - including and especially Jefferson - espoused deistic beliefs very unlike good ol' American Christianity.
    • CasaWood, on 10/18/2007, -3/+8The Deist's influence was predominate among the enlightened men of those 55 debating the Constitution. The role of organized religion was seen as a factional slant that could lead to tyranny while a belief in God was shared among most of those founders who delivered the foundation of our country.
      • atdigg, on 10/17/2007, -2/+7Many people believed that Earth was flat at some point, it's not their fault if this is the way they were taught. If many founders believed in God or not is irrelevant to the discussion whether we should protect mere fables as scientific truth or if we should let in this day and age people who believe in such fables run a country that has nuclear weapons -- to me this is irresponsible.
        • tb0n3r, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6So, you're saying that an atheist would be more responsible with nuclear weapons? During the cold war, nuclear weapons were in the hands of both atheists and religious folk. Neither of them were very responsible. I've met some idiot fundies, but I've also met some idiot atheists. Your belief, or non-belief, in god doesn't necessarily give a good marker for intelligence or responsibility.
    • barktwiggs, on 10/16/2007, -3/+9Isn't it possible to be impressed by his business and executive experience in turning around failing organizations AND just happen to be a member of his same faith?
      • CasaWood, on 10/17/2007, -1/+19Sure, and he has made a great fortune from his talents and deserves the accolades. Also, it is possible you like his politics and have studied them and they are inline with your political belief and you just happen to be a Mormon. Then, vote for him...however, to blindly vote for him for no other reason than the match in faiths and the disdain for someone who dare support anyone else based on the religion instead of the politics is where the challenge rests.
        • neuropsychguy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6Well said! Thanks for a nice rational post. We need more like that on Digg.
    • smedrick, on 10/18/2007, -9/+10As an atheist I couldn't possibly bring myself to vote for a Mormon...even if he was qualified. I mean, I think all religions are silly, but Mormonism is high on the list of ridiculous religions. Anyone dumb enough to believe that tripe does not deserve my vote.
      • neuropsychguy, on 10/18/2007, -4/+11You fall into the trap of voting based on a person's religious beliefs. You just said that you won't vote for Romney because he is Mormon - that's voting based on his religious beliefs. You're the same as Mormons who vote for him just because he is Mormon.
        • smedrick, on 10/17/2007, -6/+6No, you misunderstood me. I said I wouldn't vote for a Mormon because they have to be missing the ability of rational thought to subscribe to that nonsense. It's not just the beliefs of the LDS church, but also the way it was founded. In this case, religious beliefs just happen to correlate with intelligence.
        • cranium, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4That's idiotic. If I won't vote for the guy because he still believes in the Easter Bunny, I'm just as bad as people who do vote for him because he believes in the Easter Bunny?
    • schloemoe, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2So tell me, why shouldn't I vote for someone who has the same beliefs and morals as myself? Isn't that what this country is all about? It looks to me (and I'm sure I will be criticized) that this country is falling apart because there is such a disdain for morals and religion.
      • Mageling, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2News flash. Morals don't come directly from religion.
      • CasaWood, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1It is not that you shouldn't at all. By all means vote for someone who shares your moral ideals if they also share your political ideals. Yet, one must take the time to insure both measurements are met rather than simply a blind vote based only on religion. Had I been older during the 1960 campaign this article may well have been written regarding Catholics and Kennedy. It is not an attack on his religion or his morals or even his politics, if you believe he is your guy in all those vote but remember we are electing a political leader so the politics are important. When I talk with a lot of people committing to voting for him most cannot tell me anything more than he is a member of their church and he's business expertise helped save the Olympics.
    • kolobcreek, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1@CasaWood you blindly spoke on behalf of utahans. That is the problem with politics you get so many people that feel sometype of moral or intellectual superiority that grants them the right to speak on behalf of others. I've talked to hundreds of people all over the US and most of them no ***** about what's going on in politics or the world for that matter. And coming from a guy that quotes the Ron Paul's statement on getting congresses permission to use nuclear weapons make you an idiot. Congress grants the president those powers. Because there is a need for the president to have those powers. Many republican and democrat congresses and senates have made their way faithfully fullfilled their duites while allowing the president to maintain those powers. Why BECAUSE AMERICA MEANS BUSINESS!!! They want the world to know that we are not going to sit on our asses while another 100 MILLION people die as a result of America's inaction. Since WWII we have taken a proactive stance against war and foreign military aggression. Lets just say a whole lot less than people died in the last 50yrs of the 20 Century than first 50yrs of it.
      • CasaWood, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I nearly ignored replying due to your negative, immature attitude toward a discussion but felt a need to respond simply based on your attack. One, I did not speak on behalf of ANY Utah citizens but myself. I wrote it, it is my editorial based on my personal daily interactions and frustrations. I no more wrote on behalf of other citizens of this State than on behalf of you or anyone else. In this article I did not make a claim of superiority in any manner nor do I ever claim moral or intellectual superiority as I am learning and applying critical thinking to what I read, hear and study every day. I cannot control your narrow interpretation, however. As much as I know there is far more I still need to learn.
        Regarding the ridiculous claim Congress fulfilled its duties by passing off to the Executive Branch the check and balance power for war declaration you're either totally incompetent when it comes to what the Congressional duties are (which I don't believe is the case) or you are as good at rationalization as many of them. Non-interventionism has no connection to lack of action against aggressions. Meaning 'business' by preemptive strikes and interventionism is a policy that has done more to weaken our country while not effectively helping the world move toward a smarter way to deal with each other. A policy of non-intervention is not pacifism nor isolationism, but you do not seem to have the ability to grasp that reality based on your rage toward the world. This next comment is not for you as you will simply brush it aside but for others; if the world saw Bush and our current leaders as murderers and oppressors of their citizenry and felt it was their duty to kill him and replace him with a leader they felt would be better for U.S. citizens we would not stand for it yet for the past near century we get frustrated when others fail to see our intervention as the wonderful good deed we profess it to be. BTW - This reply is written by me and does not speak for any other but me nor is it intended to be superior nor is it a claim of superiority.
  • dooglio, on 10/18/2007, -3/+41I was talking to a woman at our local farmers market, where I staffed a booth for Ron Paul. She said she wanted to vote for Hillary just because she wanted a woman in the White House. But when I told her about Hillary's CFR affiliations and that she wants to drop our borders so we can be part of the grand NAU, she paused, frowned, and said, "well I certainly would not want *that*!" I added that her voting record on the war was abysmal, and she seemed to rethink her position in a big way.
    I think once LDS people see actually look at Romney's policies they will realize that electing someone based on gender or religion or race is a really bad idea. Look at the candidate's platform and history and that will say it all!
    • HugoNaught, on 10/17/2007, -2/+10Good job on working the booth and using gentle reason with voters.
      As for Hillary, I just don't understand how anyone could be fooled by her. Its not like her (and Bill's) crimes and scandals are unknown. There are quite a few documentaries available on youtube that demonstrate their participation in drug smuggling, money laundering, campaign finance fraud, and worse. Out of the millions of people and families in this country shouldn't our candidates for our highest office be people totally untainted from scandal, illegal activities, deciet, and suspicion? Frightening.
    • aliengoods, on 10/18/2007, -4/+14Do you really think Mormons will look at Romney's policies?! Christians sure as hell didn't look at the Bush administration policies and record the second time around, they just voted for him because he was "God's choice".

      And yes, I've heard quite a few Christians refer to Bush as "God's choice".
      • AJH16, on 10/17/2007, -3/+7Honestly I voted for Bush because I knew he would pick a path and stick with it. I wish like nothing else there had been some other choice, but I certainly didn't vote for him because he was "God's choice" and I'm about as deeply Christian as they come. (Though I suppose not overly "religious".)
        • IlMagnifico, on 10/18/2007, -2/+4Which position has he stuck to? Healthcare reform? WMD? No nation-building? Being a 'uniter'? Ok, perhaps the one where he said - "But he tried to kill my daddy, I'm gonna kick the $hit outta him and his country."
        • robisfunky, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6 No offense here, but how do you dinstinguish being 'Christian' from being 'religious'? I could understand being 'Spiritual' but not "religious', but Christianity IS a religion. If you consider yourself deeply Christian, how can you be less 'religious"?
          • AJH16, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1What dfick said, and I appreciate you asking.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2YES!! that is what we need. Somebody who looks at the new data and says "***** it, stick with the old methods".
      • SushiCW, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Yes, I do.

    • Auto, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Hello fellow RP Farmers Market booth operator! I agree... manning a booth has been very enlightening. I now realize how stupid American voters are. Every week we have dozens of people come up to us with similar questions. We had one lady last week who came over and told us with a straight face, "I voted for Bush twice. He is a great president because he is pro-life." When we asked her about the war she said, "I don't agree with it at all! In fact, I don't agree with many of his policies, but because he is pro-life I think he is a good president." One-issue voting is very dangerous. Sure, you may get what you want, but you also will likely get a whole lot you do not want.
      • brufleth, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2One issue voting is what helps otherwise crappy platforms get elected. Gay marriage probably "won" the last presidential election. People came out to vote FOR a ban on gay marriage which was being heavily promoted in many states. The amendment had no serious chance of becoming law. The only other constitutional amendment which took away rights was prohibition and that didn't last too long. It was all smoke and mirrors. After the election it was barely mentioned again.
  • RavyneHawke, on 10/18/2007, -24/+17What many fail to understand is that the Mormon Church has been trying to find an electable representative for president from the Mormon Church for decades. As an ex-Mormon, I can definitely state that this is NOT just bogus. This is part of their long-term plan to broaden Mormonism. I remember hearing our Stake Leader speaking of this during a conference. This was back in the 80s. Finally they have found that representative in Mitt Romney. They will do whatever it takes to get this man elected. The faithful Mormons WILL vote for him.. in the Primaries and if he wins the Republican Nomination, they will come out in droves to vote for him as President. Make no mistake, they have plans for this country because to them, this is the PROMISE LAND.
    • ryanlive, on 10/18/2007, -10/+23As a active Mormon I can say that I'm definitely not voting for Romney. My vote is with Mike Huckabee who is the most conservative candidate on the field. I'm sure some Mormons will vote for Romney just because he is Mormon but your suggestion that there is some broad Mormon conspiracy is ridiculous.
      • Rsardinia, on 10/17/2007, -5/+23Sorry champ, but Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate in the bunch. Huckabee wants to continue this war on terror and that is by no means conservative. Conservative means to have a humble foreign policy with no nation building. Stay out of other countries' quarrels and take care of ourselves at home. I'll admit Huckabee is no where near as bad as Giuliani or Romney or McCain and Thompson, but continuing this fight in Iraq is a horrible idea and for that alone, he is not a true conservative. Ron Paul 2008 restore the constitution and stand up for freedom and liberty.
        • HugoNaught, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4From what I understand Huck raised taxes and expenditures in Arkansas in very liberal ways: "He fought elimination of the sales tax on groceries. He raised taxes far more than he cut them. He raised them so much that treasury surpluses set records his last two years in office. ...In a state with the poorest education and weakest public services in the country, he worked practically with Democrats to get things done, even when his own party was not much help and even when they required more taxes." http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/05 ...
          Not a very conservative candidate.
        • brufleth, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4This is probably the most valid statement I've seen by a RP supporter. If nothing else the guy is actually a conservative. People don't understand what that word means anymore though.
      • 89vision, on 10/16/2007, -11/+7Something tells me your bishop is going to have a talk with you...
      • aliengoods, on 10/17/2007, -8/+10It's not a conspiracy. The Mormons have never kept secret the fact that spreading their faith throughout the world was their #1 goal. A Mormon president could give them quite a boost in the same way that a Christian Roman emperor was the catalyst to converting most of Europe.
      • tothemax64, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3Sorry to say but... I dont believe any Mormon really wants a Mormon president because thats means if he sucks and people hate him as much as people hate Bush then they will associate Mormons and hate them just as much.
    • mahdaeng, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I am a "faithful Mormon" (as you put it) and I will certainly NOT vote for Romney.
      • cranium, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1You better not mention this to the bishop before tithing settlement.
    • amorrise, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6My dad is a stake president and all of RavyneHawke's ravings are untrue. Why does being an ex-mormon somehow make you the expert. The Mormons have 60,000 missionaries who knock doors full time to tell people about the church and they all do it at their own expense, why do they need Mitt Romney to be president to get the job done. Are you suggesting they looked at how popular Bush is and decided they wanted popularity like that
      • Fragowell, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1"The Mormons have 60,000 missionaries who knock doors full time to tell people about the church and they all do it at their own expense, why do they need Mitt Romney to be president to get the job done."

        I don't really know much about the issue, but to answer your question: Because instead of 60,000 people each knocking on a door, they'd have 1 person talking to hundreds of millions.

        p.s. So are blacks going to Hell...or what's the deal with that?
        • schloemoe, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Actually only certain sins qualify for "hell" (hell, to a mormon is the complete lack of the presence of God) , Blacks will inherit their reward based on their works just like you and I.
          • Fragowell, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Ok so is being black a curse/punishment of some kind...or what's the deal with that?
        • RavyneHawke, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0Funny how the truth hurts.. I couldn't see the agenda when I was an Mormon either. You get blinded by it all. Guess I should be thankful that you are no longer required to take the BLOOD OATH and allow yourself to be murdered if you expose the Mormon religion for what it really is. Take a close look at all the symbolism you go through in the Temples.. very much like the symbolism used in Freemasonry.. why? because Joseph Smith WAS a Freemason.
          • mahdaeng, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I find it hare to believe that you were once a member of the LDS church with so much misinformation spewing out from you. Although, yes, Joseph Smith was once a Freemason.
      • LuaPron, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Tribalism is alive and well in the Mormon church. It probably is not systematically discussed by leaders, but still quite relevant. If the Mormons really where voting views instead of a perceived relationship, then Romney would not see such overwhelming support from Utah and the area surrounding it. The same holds true for almost any cultural unit - the tendency is to pick people that you can easily identify with to be your leaders, rather than the guy you simply agree with politically (its very likely that you'll change your own views to match the views of the appealing candidate).

        There is another aspect of Mormonism that makes the tendency toward tribalism much stronger than other groups. Mormon doctrine places extraordinary emphasis on authoritarian posturing. All young men are "promoted" as they age and learn within the church - teacher, deacon, elder, and whatever other titles are earned by age more than education. The church also has numerous callings, like missionary, bishop, counselor, president of various small organizations. Technically, virtually all titles and authoritarian positions have no real authority, aside from responsibility to perform certain tasks and to teach others in the church.

        People within the church are expected to respect those with an authoritarian position/title. They associate authoritarian positions with the views the church passes onto its followers. When given the opportunity, they will try to place the same type of people in public offices that they would expect to find in similar positions within their church. Who better to fit the description than another male Mormon?


        Its not a missionary effort, they simply tend to identify with Romney because Romney is a Mormon.
  • wreckosaurus, on 10/17/2007, -12/+23Interesting, I have a problem with his politics and his religion.
    • Defuser, on 10/17/2007, -5/+2That's because you're a douchebag. It's my guess that you have problems with just about EVERYTHING.
    • locitman, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2you like harry reid?
    • Ozymandias42, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5I don't have a problem with his religion. I've got plenty of Mormon friends, and the basic tenants of the religion, while wacky, are no less wacky than most of the other major religions. I do have worries about someone with his religion running for President of the United States, though. Historically, Mormons have tebded to look at the U.S. government and non-Mormon U.S. citizens as the enemy. We killed their prophet, after all. Mormons:federal government::Christians:Romans/Jews. Plus both sides have had a historical tendency to butcher crowds of the other.

      I'm also not comfortable with putting a Mormon in power because they have a living prophet who can issue orders. If Gordon B. Hinckley secretly orders Romney to spy/attack/not attack/whatever, would he be willing to accept eternal damnation rather than follow the order? I recognize that this is the same argument used against John F. Kennedy and the Pope, and that similarity forces me to consider that my argument may be rather unfair, but fortunately I don't have to rely on it because, being from Massachusetts, I hate Romney in a purely secular manner.
  • Chassit, on 10/18/2007, -1/+54I don't care which religion a candidate belongs to, it's their politics that are important.
    • tedlove, on 10/16/2007, -14/+2so we can assume youd feel the same way if a candidate was a fundamentalist muslim...? interesting.
      • Chassit, on 10/16/2007, -0/+11No assuming about it...I said it straight up!
      • aliengoods, on 10/16/2007, -2/+3Shove your flamebait right up your ass.
      • HugoNaught, on 10/17/2007, -0/+12I wouldn't mind if someone were a fundamentalist Muslim so long as their political actions demonstrate respect for Constitutional law, individual rights, and free market economics.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/17/2007, -5/+4That's a very strange thing to say. So you can ignore one aspect of their beliefs while judging them on another? Why are they separate and compartmentalized?

      The idea that religion is somehow separate from other beliefs is ridiculous. If you believe something crazy you don't get a free pass because you label it religion. Even if it's not crazy, you don't get to put it on a pedestal and say that it is off limits to critique.

      My oh my, how religion has rotted the minds of so many Americans.
      • mahdaeng, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5Wrong. A man's devotion to upholding the Constitution and putting his country (and its people) first in world affairs is what makes a great president. Whether he's a Christian, Muslim, atheist, believes that the moon is made of cheese, or whatever, does not matter - as long as it does not interfere with his ability to steer the country in the direction most beneficial to its people.
    • prisoner24601, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Honestly here, this is a genuine question, not a troll or anything like that...

      Isn't there SOME point where you start to say: "I know everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to, but that doesn't mean I somehow lose MY right to consider what they are willing to believe as a factor in what I will trust them to do." In other words, I trust Tom Cruise to do his job, which is act and ONLY to act. I mean I thought he was a credible Maverick, and he got me involved in the life of Jerry Maguire, etc. So maybe it doesn't present a big problem for us to pay $9 and see a movie with him in it and know that he's also a Scientologist and know a lot about how indescribably idiotic that "religion" is, right? I mean as long as he "gets the job done" maybe we don't care? But isn't there SOME point where EITHER the level of insanity of the belief system is so extreme OR the position the person is applying for (or both?!) that we just HAVE to say: "I'm sorry, if you honestly believe XYZ you simply can''t be ZYX? I mean if someone genuinely believes that invisible alien spacecraft land in the desert every night and these aliens deserve to be worshipped as gods, they have the absolute right as citizens to be free to believe that. Freedom of religion is inviolate in my mind, no matter how insane. But would you let this guy be your kid's Pediatrician? Your accountant? A cop? The President? Joseph Smith was an INCREDIBLY obvious fraud. His ridiculous "translation" of the Kirtland Papers (the so-called Book of Moses and Book of Abraham) are absolutely laughable works of fiction. And any person who investigates them will see that. So if a person refuses to investigate them, refuses to rationally consider what they believe, doesn't that eliminate them from consideration from some positions of extreme responsibility?
      • Chassit, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Well, as an atheist, I could make that argument about ANYONE and their religion...
        • prisoner24601, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Actually this is a (another) genuine question. Do you really honestly believe that ALL people who believe ANY religion that teaches there is ANY sort of God are sufficiently "irrational" that they are disqualified from high office?

          Imagine, just for an example, that there was a person who (much like I assume you probably do) believed completely in evolution, thought there was no such thing as an immortal human soul, no life after death in either heaven or hell, etc. Imagine they believed almost everything you do, but that the one difference is that if you "ran time backwards" to the very moment of the Big Bang (which I assume you see as the moment of the beginning of the universe) that they believe it was CAUSED by some unknown outside sentient person. In other words, most (if not all) Atheists I've met have a fairly straightforward belief about the moment of conception of our universe, that it was "uncaused" and NOT the result of any prior action, and certainly not cause by any individual of any sort. The (most common, I think) atheist perspective is that the universe we live in is entirely self-existent. (The only modified version of this I've encountered is the idea that our universe is somehow a "daughter universe" of a larger, earlier reality, etc. but in that theory, atheists still hold the idea that any and all "parent" universes/realities are also not caused by any sentient individual, but that is getting away from my point...) What I'm trying to illustrate here is that if the most adamant Atheist were to meet a person who believed almost everything they did, but with the one exception that they believe the starting point was indeed cause by some individual God of some sort (who, for this discussion we will assume then because ENTIRELY uninvolved in the universe he created, did nothing to direct it, gave none of its life forms an immortal soul, etc.) I would think you, as an atheist, would really have to admit that this Theist (although he would only barely qualify for the label...) has no more of a provable or disprovable theory of the origin of the universe than you do. What I'm saying is that even the most hardcore atheist has to admit (I think) that religion is a continuum ranging from "plausible" (and for you that would be this Basic Theist I've described) to "inexcusably laughable" which I would call perhaps the guy who thinks the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is God, etc. I'm arguing that Joseph Smith was such a patent liar that believing the Pearl of Great Price is so counter-rational that it places someone just a few steps short of utterly irrational, but well past the line of "too easily fooled to be president" in my book. For an atheist to respond that the line of "they are too irrational to trust" is drawn just to the right of Atheist and excludes EVERY person who believes in (even the most rational and thoughtful) concept of God is unreasonable don't you think? There are such things are Thinking Theists, although I'll admit there are not enough of us around! :-)
  • barktwiggs, on 10/26/2007, -5/+12I find it funny how people have contorted and blown his comments way out of context. Here is a guy who says he's willing to consult and confer with others before going and making a rash decision like going to war. He's not going to go charging in with no afterthought like the current president did.
    Also, when he was governor of Mass, he could have tried to exert and extend his powers to prevent or block the activist judges from enabling homosexual marriage, but he decided to make it a ballot initiative and counter it legally. This move upset a lot of religious groups because Romney was not overstepping his bounds in reigning in the Mass Suprememe Court who were definately overstepping their authority. This example shows the respect Romney has for the rule of law and he would continue to show that respect should he be elected president.
    • Frei, on 10/17/2007, -6/+3"I find it funny how people have contorted and blown his comments way out of context. Here is a guy who says he's willing to consult and confer with others"

      Yeah "others" being his lawyers and not congress. The only person taking things out of context is you.
    • skipdog172, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3Contacting his personal lawyers, instead of congress, is unbelievable. Why do you support this????
      • neuropsychguy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Hmm, lesser of two evils - Congress or Lawyers. I'd probably go with lawyers myself! :D
    • brufleth, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2As a resident of Mass I can tell you that Mitt isn't exactly loved by liberals or conservatives here. My parents are die hard conservatives and will definitely not be voting for him. There was nothing "activist" about the judges allowing gay marriage. The social concept of marriage is entirely based on your belief system. If you don't believe that same sex marriage is valid then don't do it. However, the legal implications of marriage should be independent of belief systems and as such can be between same sex partners. If two people want to share next of kin status, health benefits, etc it should be up to them to make that decision. Their gender shouldn't factor in.
    • TheFlamingoKing, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Romney also wants the line item veto, which has been declared unconstitutional by our Supreme Court (only good thing Mr. 9/11 ever did...) The man just does not care for the Constitution - exactly the same as our current president.

      Romney = DO NOT WANT
    • socketscientist, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"Here is a guy who says he's willing to consult and confer with others before going and making a rash decision like going to war."

      I'm sure even Mitt's lawyers were stunned by his suggestion that he'd consult them about waging war!
  • ryanlive, on 10/17/2007, -5/+15Dugg just for the Ezra Taft Benson quotes.
  • kamel, on 10/17/2007, -4/+3Even if Mitt doesn't win the GOP nomination, he might still be a factor in the general election. Is it possible that he could win Utah despite not being the nominee? If he were to take Utah's 5 electoral votes away from the GOP nominee, it could lead to a GOP loss. Five votes isn't a lot, but with a tight race, it could be huge.
    • cranium, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1LSD is a helluva drug, right?
    • CasaWood, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1It could be possible since the primaries have no real authority over the conventions of the parties, merely is a dog & pony focus leading up to them. Delegates can vote any way they choose no matter what the outcome of any primary voting is.
  • sensoukami, on 10/17/2007, -4/+11Mitt Romney...interesting cat.

    First, let's look at his record of competence. Successfull businessman, was great with the Olympics (noone really questions that), and was by all means a decent governor in famously liberal Massachuests. So, it certainly seems like he would be a 'capable' President, unlike the Chimpanzee and Dick Scumbag currently ensconed in the White House.

    I suspect that this recent "Mitt the Ultra-Conservative" persona is a facade brought on by the harsh realities of the primary system in the US. Which Mitt would be in the White House? The one who was quite centrist in Massachuests or the one spitting Right-Wing fire on the campaign trail?
    • brufleth, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2You're white washing his time here in Mass. When he left to run for President his Leut. Gov was soundly obliterated by her opponent.
  • Rsardinia, on 10/17/2007, -3/+27The "I'll have to check w/ my lawyers" quote summarized Romney quite nicely for me. He's a business man through and through. He doesn't care what the rule of law is, he'd rather check with his lawyers (like a true business man) to find any loop hole he can jump through to get around doing whats legal to pass on his own agenda or accomplish his own goals.
  • readthis, on 10/17/2007, -6/+18I totally agree. Mormons are some of the kindest people I've met.
    • Mossman85, on 10/17/2007, -6/+8Anybody can be THAT kind if they try. Kindness has nothing to do with religion. You don't need to be Mormon to be nice.
      • neuropsychguy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5True, but it helps.
      • mahdaeng, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3You're missing the point - but so is readthis. We're not talking about niceness here, we're talking about a man's fitness to be president.
    • cranium, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2Only to non-mormons. They're complete assholes to each other.
    • RavyneHawke, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1They are only nice so long as you play along with them. Try divorcing an abusive husband and find out how fast they all turn their backs on you.. and just for the record.. he was a NON-MORMON husband at that. No temple marriage, no sealing for all time and eternity.. but they were hopeful that I would bring him into the fold and when I didn't, when I divorced him for abuse, they turned their backs on me. So yeah.. very nice when they are trying to convert you.. not so nice when you go against them.
  • chesscat, on 10/17/2007, -5/+6This guy IS NOT qualified to be president. He says he will check with lawyers before attacking Iran?? LOL. Ever heard of reading the Constitution dumbass?
    • Defuser, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Gee, please enlighten us, dimwit: what exactly does the Constitution have to say about "attacking Iran"? Damn, people like you are stupid. But that's not the worst part: the worst part is that you're stupid, and insist on acting as if you actually know something.
      • socketscientist, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Well Article 1, Section 8 says that only Congress can declare war. In theory that ought to cover "attacking Iran". This has been frequently ignored of course in practice ... and Bush is not the first President to do so. However, many Constitutional scholars think a President is not permitted to use military force absent the formal approval of Congress, other than in retaliation against an attacker.
    • lazyfisherman, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1And Bush is? At least Romney didn't run Bain into the ground.
  • reknaps, on 10/17/2007, -0/+31Im glad someone wrote this. Im a Mormon and have been received baffled, angry looks when I tell fellow church members that I'm not going to vote for Romney.
    • hqwildcard, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2Ooo! Ooo!! Me Too!!!
    • Defuser, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9Eh. I'm a Mormon, and I'm a Democrat that's voting for Obama. If your fellow Mormons give you grief, just remind them that the Church has officially stated on MANY occasions that they do not support a particular Party or Candidate. Romney lost me when he started spouting off about "doubling the size of Gitmo".
      • reknaps, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2"doubling the size of Gitmo"
        Thats exactly what turned me off in the first place as well
  • skyh, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5"It's not his religion, it's his politics"

    Yup, exactly why I don't like him as a candidate.
  • IlMagnifico, on 10/17/2007, -5/+4Replace Romney by Lieberman, 2008 with 2000 and Church of LDS with Jew. Now read that article again.
  • DanOnTheMoon, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3Collectivism is silly, you can't look at someone's religion, party, race or any other sort of group identity and tell squat about that person. That said, Ron Paul, as an individual, I totally support. I mean, after seeing all those Romney banners hanging from interstates across the country, you know his base has to be fired up about him.. :lol: Oh, wait, those are Ron Paul banners! Where's your grassroots support, Mitchell? Where'd it go, ya Rino? Oh, wait, it was never there - all the REAL Republicans are rooting for Ron! RP08FTW!
  • Mononuclear, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9The problem exists with religion, political party, etc. People just assume that just because someone is of the same religion or political party as they are, then that person must have the exact same morals and values that they do and is a "good person". It is sad that so many people base votes off of religion or party or nationality with assumptions they are like minded without actually looking at the policies of these people.
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5I agree. Look at Harry Reid. He's LDS and is the Senate Majority Leader. I disagree with him on a number of policies and certainly wouldn't vote for him (if I could) just because he's LDS.
  • Liotius, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3There is no chance whatsoever that Utah will not have Romney as winning the primary.
  • neuropsychguy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+8I'm LDS (Mormon) and support Romney (not because he is Mormon but because I agree with a lot of his policies. Religion is never a deciding factor for me in voting - after all, Pres. Bush is an evangelical Christian and a lot of evangelicals hate Mormons and pretty much everything we stand for) but I thought this was one of the better submissions we've had on Digg recently. It was well-written and in a tactful manner.
  • abqheights, on 10/17/2007, -4/+2Romney is the Kerry of the Republicans. An unprincipled faux-conservative who will say whatever his audience wants to hear. I couldn't care less about his religion. I don't like his politics. More importantly, however, I don't like his inconsistency. He's nothing more than a slick used car salesman who panders to his audience. Just look at how his stances on controversial issues have changed since he was gov of Mass (abortion, gun control). How can anyone possibly trust this guy?

    That "consult with my attorneys" comment was so typical. 1) he obviously hadn't prepared for that question - he didn't get his speech polishers to give him the proper talking points. 2) he's just looking for a way around the law. 3) he clearly doesn't comprehend or respect the Constitution.
    • Defuser, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Great, another dumbass invoking the Constitution for no discernable reason. What part of the Constitution does he now "comprehend or respect"?
  • ronaldinho, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2I'm a Christian and I have long believed there should always be a separation of church and state. Don't vote based on religion; vote based on their platforms. I'm from Mass and I'm not sold on Romney. Honestly though, there will be people voting on religious considerations, and they are the ones who make religious yet educated people look like idiots
  • empiric, on 10/17/2007, -7/+1As a Lutheran, I'd have to say, to be honest--it's equally his religion.
    • Defuser, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2Then you're kinda stupid, aren't you? You're not voting for a religious leader. You're voting for a politician.
  • thesquire, on 10/17/2007, -0/+11I am a practicing mormon and this article describes perfectly why I think Mitt Romney is a bad presidential candidate, and how frustrated I can get with less politically savvy mormons who look at his candidacy from a purely religious stance.

    On a side note on Utah politics, while I'm sure Mitt Romney will get most of Utah's votes, it is the Ron Paul supporters who are most active and enthusiastic. While I drive around Provo, Utah I see more bumper stickers, signs, posters, etc. for Ron Paul than all the other candidates combined.
    • Defuser, on 10/17/2007, -3/+0On a slightly different note: Given that I'm a Mormon, here on Digg is about the only place I can say this and not be stoned by those around me: Ezra Taft Benson was a nitwit. This comment sums up all you need to know about him: “The sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression.” Yup, if Ezra had his way, we wouldn't have public education, the FDA, the Interstate Highway system, Medicaid, or the Internet. We never would have built the Panama Canal or sent a man into space.
      I have no problem with people having their own opinions regarding the function of Government, but I have a HUGE problem with people trying to use God as a club to force others to share their ideas. Separation of Church and State is the greatest concept in the history of government.
      • soupir, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6What are you talking about? Did we read the same article? It goes on to further quote Benson's belief that our foreign policy should focus on "the preservation of our national independence." Clearly, the quotes had foreign policy as a context. Taken this way, as the article suggests, Benson would have made a better candidate than Romney and his "lock step thinking with many of the Bush Administration." Furthermore, most of the programs you mentioned are domestic policies, arguably within the bounds of protecting "life, liberty, and property." To throw out "nitwit" like this means you need to read the article again. Chillax.
  • smacksaw, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4Voting for someone based up on their religion instead of what they stand for is like Islamists supporting Bin Laden.
  • Ev3nt372, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3Unfortunately, his religion has a rather large influence on his politics. He aligns himself with Pat Robertson and the rest of those vile evangelicals.
    We need a Philosopher or Scientific presidential candidate and Mr Ron Paul is as close as it gets. At least as long as Al Gore stays away.
  • smacksaw, on 10/17/2007, -2/+11Mormons should naturally support Paul.

    Church of LDS is THE ONLY VIABLE, WORKING MODEL OF SOCIALISM IN THE WORLD. Period.

    And guess what? It's a LIBERTARIAN way of doing things. I'm sure many hardcore, blind "libertarians" will Digg me down for even saying there's room for both, but there is. LDS is democratic, it's voluntary and it takes care of itself. It is not bureaucratically institutionalised.

    You do not have to tithe. You get a lot of services for your money. You have volunteers who administer the social programmes. There is little chance to game the system when you have people in your local community you deal with. You are directly accountable to your community. Things are asked of you to improve your community. And it's all voluntary. None of it prevents you from participating in the free-market. Capitalism is highly regarded by the church since it creates revenue for the church. The church spends the money responsibly.

    The best part is that the church does not stifle the free market. It supports it. By addressing basic needs people are more productive. The church has offered for DECADES (since the New Deal) to consult with the US gov't to explain how to administer social programmes. That's the sad thing about Romney. Should he be elected, he would not bring any lessons of what works from the church as far as real life goes, only the spiritual part of it.

    Which brings me to the last part (and where I'll get Dugg down again probably LOL, but don't take it too personally) which is that if Mitt would ditch the faith and bring the practicality of what it is to be LDS he would be awesome. Doing the opposite is not helpful. We don't need more faith in politics, we need less. And if there was a way I could be Mormon without having to involve myself with any of the religious part I would do it. If I could quit paying taxes and just pay you guys and get in on your thing I'd do it. It's a lot more for 10% of my income than the current 40% I pay.
    • mahdaeng, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3It's not called "the church of LDS". But otherwise, very good post.
      • smacksaw, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2COJCOLDS? LOL!
        • mahdaeng, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2True - long name - but the point of contention here is that in your earlier reference, you omitted the "JC" part fo the name.

          :^)
          • smacksaw, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I know, I wish you could edit later...I was feeding my kid and I think my brain was going faster than my hands
    • robisfunky, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4 Dugg down for being so paranoid of being Dugg down...
      • smacksaw, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Well I lived in Salt Lake (54S 560E) and I know what it's like to say what I said to LDS in person and if there was such thing as Digg back then I would have been walking around with "-50" above my head. I Dugg you up for Digging me down.
  • locitman, on 10/17/2007, -0/+7Senate Leader Harry Reid - D (Nev) is a mormon too.
  • thelandlady, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1this reminds me of when they had some gilr that was Mormon and from Utah that was on, "So you think you can dance." Everyone here supported her mainly because she was Mormon...not because she was a good dance. Luckily, she actually had talent to help her along.

    The church just stated that they have 13 million members...that's close to the population of Mexico City -5 million. Its really not big enough to be prominent in any election.
    • mahdaeng, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2[[Everyone here supported her mainly because she was Mormon...not because she was a good dance. Luckily, she actually had talent to help her along.]]

      Huh? If she had talent, as you say she did, why do you think they would support her for her religion instead of for her talent? Isn't it possible that they were thinking, "Wow! that girl's got talent! And she's a Mormon, too!"
  • Shiftyeyedgoat, on 10/17/2007, -6/+1This is less "Romney's politics et al suck", and more "RON PAUL IS TEH GREETST CANDIDORT EVAH".

    Worthless blogspam. Buried.
    • CasaWood, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1There was one mention of an interchange with Romney and Paul. If another had the courage to say consulting lawyers before the Constitution was a bad idea I would have gladly quoted them as well. Give up on your fear of every article being only Paul. If Paul makes the most sense he is bound to get the most recognition. Bury away, keep your narrow mind in the sand, yet the article simply is now as you say!
  • CecilDL, on 10/18/2007, -2/+7I think a lot of my fellow Latter Day Saints forget about this:
    http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnexto ...
    • mahdaeng, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3No. Most people simply don't realize that Mormons have that policy, and therefore think that they will herd together and blindly vote based on religion. I guarantee you that every Mormon knows about that policy.
  • prisoner24601, on 11/12/2007, -8/+4Romney's not just some sort of "social Mormon" who is only vaguely familiar with his religion, remember he did a full two-year "mission" just like those kids who knock on your door on Saturday. Those poor deceived young guys are, without a doubt, some of the nicest people you will ever meet, but that doesn't take away the fact that they are so incredibly brainwashed that they cannot grasp the (incredibly obvious) fraud that Joseph Smith was.

    It's sad that atheists in these sort of threads always try to counter with the "any belief is stupid" argument, but that just isn't reasonable at all. It's easy to PROVE that the "Pearl of Great Price" (the so-called Book of Abraham and Book of Moses) were unspeakably blatant fabrications by Joseph Smith, but these "wonderfully kind people" who knock on your door are so severely programmed that they are no longer capable of seeing that. Tragic. And there's no way I'd EVER want one of those guys to become president some day. We desperately need people in leadership with critical thinking skills, not blind loyalty to an easily provable fraud like Joseph Smith.
    • mahdaeng, on 11/12/2007, -1/+5Funny...you criticize the LDS church and yet call yourself, "prisoner". Do some more tan superficial research on those documents to which you just referred, and on the lives and motives of their critics, and then get back to us on that.
      • dvance, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5"Prisoner 24601" refers to Jean Valjean from Les Mis, he's a man who turned his life around for good. That being said, it's true that the accusations on Joseph Smith and the PoGP are inaccurate.
      • prisoner24601, on 11/12/2007, -4/+5I've already done the research, have you? Would you care to give us an explanation of how the three "facsimiles" from the Book of Abraham (which Joseph Smith claimed were depictions of Abraham’s life) are IDENTICAL to countless examples found in common Egyptian funerary scrolls where they are indisputably references to Osiris, the Egyptian god of the Dead? You genuinely need to do your homework on this. Get any "quad" or "triple" and look at the woodcuts, compare the absurd story that Joseph Smith fabricated to the well-known (and easy to Google) explanations of what these diagrams REALLY mean. Joseph Smith was a fraud. He made up a translation. The conclusion is unavoidable.
        • dvance, on 11/12/2007, -1/+4The Gospel has been around longer than Egyptian culture. It makes sense to me that what was once sacred could have been sublimated into their culture in a corrupted way.
      • dvance, on 11/12/2007, -1/+4The Gospel has been around longer than Egyptian culture. It makes sense to me that what was once sacred could have been sublimated into their culture in a corrupted way.
      • blsdavecc, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Hey Mahdaeng, Stop being so Mormony....Your rants are nothing but the cries of a forgotten child from the 6th wife of an abusive father. We get it. Stop.
  • koft, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5This is a subtle Ron Paul article.
    • mahdaeng, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Not so subtle, actually.
    • CasaWood, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Again, if anyone but Dr. Paul would have stood up to the lawyer comment I would have gladly used their response. It was just that Ron Paul was the only one that dared to stand for the Constitution instead of lawyers that night.
  • sj200, on 10/18/2007, -6/+1naw . . . it's the religion . . .I mean come ON! magic underwear??
    Never belong to a religion that requires a membership card to attend services, or has it's own "style guide".
    forgetaboutit!
    • dvance, on 11/12/2007, -0/+9People...the underwear (aka garments) is mostly meant to be a physical, constant reminder of sacred covenants made with God, like a wedding ring can remind people of their wedding vows. And, you don't have to be a member to go to regular Sunday services. And I doubt The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only organization in the world who has stated a preference for how they are referred to in the press.
  • TrojanGuy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3It is pretty amazing that Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate who recognizes the Constitution's limits on the authority of the President to take his country to war.
  • blurrie, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2and... it's his religion..
  • kolobcreek, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2So I guess living in SLC gives you some sort of street cred huh? Chided? wtf ever that means. As far as politics goes ALL I need to know is that he doesn't support FREE RIDES. Someone that doesn't have a history of lying to his family. And in the case of the senator from Arizona someone that is so damn annoying.
  • farmerbb, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2One of the best political articles to hit Digg in a while. Spot on.
  • Araxen, on 10/18/2007, -3/+2Mitt Romney is human scum!
  • NeoVulcan, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3I'm not for or against Mitt Romney, but I am not convinced that Romney has done anything wrong aside from empathy with President Bush. I don't even agree with everything President Bush has done, but he has always stood behind doing something, which is something most politicians can't say. I've read one good critique of Bush so far and I only consider it worthwhile because the author suggested a course of action for diplomats to take.
    http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/opinion/18fri ...
  • dudad, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3Despite conspiracy theories, the LDS (Mormon) prophet does not mingle in genuinely political affairs and would not do so if Romney was the US President. A statement is read in all LDS churches during election periods that encourages members to not vote for someone who is LDS simply because they are LDS and stating that the Church does not endorse any political candidate.
  • littlesquall, on 10/18/2007, -3/+2Mitt Romney is a douchebag. What a joke while governor of Massachusetts.
  • Laughsatyou, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3on digg if you have a religion, your evil. unless your religion is islam, then they love you.
    • wakananda, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1You are seven hundred years out of date, you pigheaded wannabe crusader. Brain-damaged psychos like you are what enable the globalist financial elites to betray America's Constitution, bleed our treasury dry and sacrifice our children on the altar of Mammon.
  • lopla, on 10/25/2007, -3/+2Of all the religious freaks in the world mormons rank #1. They are pure bred lunatics even a notch above born agains and that is saying a lot. These psychos lead based on their beliefs in outlandish fairytales. How anyone with religious beliefs can be considered president is beyond me.
  • zera555, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I can proudly say I am LDS, but Mitt Romney is not my first choice. I've studied several of the candidates, and even though Romney does belong to my faith, I choose Ron Paul over him.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.