A child’s curiosity and natural desire to learn are like a tiny flame, easily extinguished unless it’s protected and given fuel. This book will help you as a parent both protect that flame of curiosity and supply it with the fuel necessary to make it burn bright throughout your child’s life. Let’s ignite our children’s natural love of learning!
November 30th, 2006
The press is all abuzz with Mitt Romney (not to mention his Mormonism) and his potential (and probable) candidacy for the office of the POTUS.
I’m worried that the LDS voting bloc is jumping in behind him simply because he’s a fellow Mormon. To entertain the notion that he’s not a good candidate for the presidency, I cite the following from “The Mitt Romney Deception”:
Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he’s pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal — and that his new found conversion to conservatism very likely coincides with his candidacy for the presidency.
The article goes on to cite some examples showing Romney’s anti-conservative stances, which can also be viewed at On The Issues.
Take some time to read them.
Are we so willing to throw in our support behind a political candidate simply because he professes the same religion? Haven’t we been warned against wolves in sheep’s clothing? Isn’t it feasible that Romney could be the wrong candidate, despite his professed faith?
The astute visitor will remember that until a few weeks ago I had a link on my sidebar to a Romney-friendly campaign site. I have taken it down since that time, as I have come across more and more information that leads me to disagree with Romney’s political stances on varying issues. He’s a great businessman, but when it comes to the issues, it looks like Romney isn’t the best option for this nation.
17 Responses to “Masquerading Mitt”
March 22, 2007
[…] cited on my Masquerading Mitt post, we learn that Mitt is a politician in the very sense of the word (often antonymous with being […]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is an important point to bring up — as much as we don’t want people to discount Mitt just because he’s a Mormon, we likewise shouldn’t vote for him just because he is. I personally like his fiscal conservatism and would love to see the cleanup job he’d do with the budget.
Mitt got quite a reputation during the Winter Olympics here in Mountain Green, where I live, for his actions at the park-n-ride in Mountain Green, where busses picked up the people to transport them up the mountain to Snow Basin Ski Resort. There was a bomb scare involving one of the busses, and workers (volunteers) took the prescribed reactions to the threat and backed up all the busses (hundreds of them) while thousands of people stood around in the cold and waited. Mitt was there personally, and ordered the volunteers to stand down, disregard the threat, and let the busses roll. His reputation got around quite quickly as to not only how he disregarded the security procedures, but how rude he was with all the volunteers and how dirty his mouth was – – spouting all kinds of four-letter profanities. His reputation became not one of a practicing Mormon, but one of a hypocrit, very practiced in the use of profanity.
I’m actually glad to see that Romney’s more moderate than I gave him credit for. I probably wouldn’t vote for him unless the Dems run someone awful, like Hillary. However, I think Connor brings up a good point that a candidate’s religion shouldn’t be the deciding factor in how we vote.
As a side note, whoever wrote the article about Romney being a liberal, Connor, doesn’t know what a liberal is. It reminds me of the article you posted a while ago that claimed Orrin Hatch was a closet liberal, nevermind that he’s in the top-five of most conservative voting records in the Senate, farther right than Bill Frist and Rick Santorum. Where do you find these amusing articles?
Looks like Mitt will be filing his papers on January 3rd.
This JBS commentary hits the nail on the head, explaining that any candidate should be judged explicitly on the issues and not on religious affiliation.
Glad to see you’ve seen the light at least on this issue Connor! 🙂
The MSM news has just reported that Mitt is considering Newt Gingrich or Jeb Bush as a running mate. That should further introduce speculation as to what type of a politician Mitt is.
A ‘wolf in sheeps clothing’? Nice try Connor. Did Mitt do something to you? Why do you hate him so much? I agree that Latter-Day Saints shouldn’t vote for him based on his religion. I would love to see all voters across the country educate themselves on the candidates and then cast an educated vote. In my opinion, however, I feel the majority of uneducated voting takes place on the side of the Democrats who we will surely see vote based solely on sex or race.
What bothers me most, however, is that I don’t see much commentary (a.k.a. attacks) here on your blog about any of the other candidates. I wonder why that is. Seems rather 2-dimensional wouldn’t you agree? I wonder why you don’t focus more energy on who you support and less on attacking those who you disagree with. Perhaps YOU are the Wolf in Shepard’s clothing, trying to lead innocent lambs astray from what is good. The good being Mitt Romney. That sounds quite a bit more accurate to me.
1. I’m not attacking, I’m discussing. I’m sure that Mitt is a great guy and a fabulous Uncle to you. His personal character and worthiness is not the issue at hand. I merely discuss his political stances, record, and the implications those things have for his presidential candidacy. Why do I not do the same for other candidates? Perhaps because I feel that their weak points and inconsistencies are easily discernable, while I find too many people supporting Mitt simply because he’s LDS. As a Latter-day Saint, I find that a bit irksome, and hence dedicate some of my brain power and blogging time to getting the word out.
2. A wolf in shepherd’s clothing would be recruiting people to follow himself. I am doing no such thing. A shepherd seeks after people who will follow him, while all I’m trying to do is point people towards true Constitutional principles and the “wise and honest men” who support them.
Your viewpoint is most obviously biased. It’s laughable that you feel it your duty to call others to the balance.
There’s nothing wrong with “attacking” a single candidate and ignoring the others *if the points are valid.*
Putting words in others mouths (Connor now somehow hates Mitt Romney), and making baseless claims isn’t helping uncle Mitt’s campaign any. Respond to the criticisms from a logical standpoint, and leave the fanboi hat at home next time.
1 – Mitt IS great guy. In my last post I mentioned that many (not just Mormons) vote for people based on Race, Sex, or in the case which bothers you – Religion. There is no disagreement there. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the polls would have us believe that most wouldn’t vote for Mitt simply because of his Religion. A very bigoted viewpoint in my opinion. You always push for Ron Paul due to his call for constitutional values. What about the one that says there shall be no religious test for office? Why wouldn’t you devote just as much time going after the bigots and defending Mitt’s ability to run without being attacked and judged based on his religion. This country was founded by people who fled religious persecution. Has everyone forgotten history? It is your prerogative to do what you want to do, I just wonder why it’s so unilateral against Mitt. If Ron Paul is who you support, then talk about HIM. Why should people vote for HIM? Not just why they shouldn’t vote for his opponents.
I truly don’t see Ron getting past the primaries, so I wonder who you’ll be supporting once he pulls out or loses. Have you thought about this? Perhaps you are just glad he is able to get some of the issues important to you out in the public eye for further reflection. I respect that, if you feel that’s what’s right.
2 – My analogy of the Wolf in Shepard’s clothing referred more to the act of leading sheep in a particular direction (or viewpoint). You can very easily fulfill this role by leading astray from one location (or mindset) towards a different destination. If it doesn’t make perfect sense to you, that’s not the point. You get the point I made. Don’t “look beyond the mark”.
Yes my view is biased. However, the understanding that creates that bias is not to be overlooked. Inside knowledge directly from the source is invaluable. I know my Uncle well. I know his motives. My information is not media-tainted.
‘Laughable’? Interesting according to your argument that due to familial status, one can no longer defend or comment on remarks made. You refuted your own call for logic before it ever occurred. As for my comments, there is no duty, rather desire.
‘Fanboi hat’? I imagine you were quite proud of yourself for that one. Great accomplishment. Gold star.
Jacob asks: “I truly don’t see Ron getting past the primaries, so I wonder who you’ll be supporting once he pulls out or loses. Have you thought about this?”
I don’t intend to answer for Connor, but I’ve thought about that very question. Right now I’m going to write in the name “Ron Paul.”
I realize he will not make it to the primaries, the PTB will see to that. But they won’t stop me from voting for him anyway.
You always push for Ron Paul due to his call for constitutional values. What about the one that says there shall be no religious test for office? Why wouldn’t you devote just as much time going after the bigots and defending Mitt’s ability to run without being attacked and judged based on his religion.
Simple: I don’t think Mitt’s the right guy for the job. I completely agree that his Mormonism shouldn’t be a major concern for the office of the POTUS, but that doesn’t mean I should devote any time to that fact.
I push for Ron Paul, because like you said, he has constitutional values. Mitt is all too willing to treat the Constitution like Bush and deny habeas corpus to “enemy combatants” while doubling Guantanamo and fighting the all too elusive “war on terror”.
If Ron Paul is who you support, then talk about HIM.
I do talk about him… a lot! You might wonder, then, why I talk seem to cast aspersions on Mitt.. it’s simply because my main audience is the LDS voting bloc (well, those savvy enough to read blogs, and those who have found mine). The large percentage of that voting bloc is in support of Mitt, and hence I find it important to explain why Mitt isn’t the right guy, and why Ron Paul is.
I truly don’t see Ron getting past the primaries, so I wonder who you’ll be supporting once he pulls out or loses. Have you thought about this?
This is why I will vote, and I will cast that vote for the Thomas Jefferson of our day, regardless of his status in the primaries. I will not vote for the “lesser of two evils”, for as I indicate in the post I just linked to, my vote is sacred. As such, I will cast it only in favor of the right man for the job, regardless of any so-called “practicality”.
Perhaps you are just glad he is able to get some of the issues important to you out in the public eye for further reflection. I respect that, if you feel that’s what’s right.
While this is certainly a beneficial outcome of his campaign, it is not the main goal. The goal is to win, and to that end I support him. If he is not elected, oh well. But I, unlike many others, do not maintain a defeatist attitude. After all, minorities change the world.
You can very easily fulfill this role by leading astray from one location (or mindset) towards a different destination.
He who points people towards the Constitution leads “his sheep” in the right direction—the direction of truth, of morality, of tradition, and of liberty. Those who favor big government may consider this path “astray” from their own desires, but such people will sooner or later see the folly of their ways when the empire they’ve sought to promote comes crashing down.
I know my Uncle well. I know his motives.
Good motives doth not a true patriot make. As the quote goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Motives are not enough. An understanding of liberty is what is required. Any man who wants to send more of our men into a no-win, undeclared, un-Constitutional war does not, in my opinion, have a sound understanding of history, of sound foreign policy, nor of the threats our nation really faces.
I agree with you that no one should be attacked or judged unfairly for a secular office because of his religious affiliation (or lack thereof). I am trying to base my decision on who should be president strictly according to whoever will do the best job of “preserv[ing], protect[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution” — the oath of office.
For those who haven’t decided who to vote for yet, could you please tell us how Mitt Romney would preserve, protect, and defend the constitution? Can you give a few specific examples for those who cannot seem to find them? (asking in all fairness and with respect)
This could be bourdering slander. That being said, Ron Paul is a mud slinger. I have first hand experience with him telling his “followers” to do illegal things to raise the number of votes he recieves. One account is this: Ron Paul voters got a list of people who were going to take a charter bus to a fund raiser for Mitt Romney, called those people, and told them that the fundraiser had been canceled and not to meet for the bus. Doesn’t that sound a bit sketchy?
Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about Mitt Romney. His road to the Whitehouse is losing steam in a hurry. I am grateful of that, because I think it would be sad to see an LDS president who didn’t honor his oath of office. It would be impossible for Mitt to honor his oath without changing a lot of his policies and becoming the biggest flip-flopper in history, which he’s on the way of becoming, anyway. He is toast.
I said a year ago that I believed the face-off would be between Clinton and Giuliani and I still believe it will be. And if I were going to make a bet, I’d say the next Commander-in-Chief will be wearing a dress. Ha!
I hope that Ron Paul decides to run on an independant ticket. He said that he wouldn’t, but perhaps with the wave of Internet support he has had, he might change his mind. He has garnered a lot of support from the young people of both parties and I think he has enough backing to seriously screw up the next election. It will be fun to watch, even if he doesn’t win.
I’m very skeptical of Tyler’s charges againt Ron Paul. If that were really the case, that Ron Paul actually got on the phone and called people and told them to not meet for the bus, that someone would have taken that to the press. Besides, I can’t help but believe that Ron Paul doesn’t have that kind of time or wouldn’t take those kinds of risks. He’s a man of honor.
Tyler, did he call you and did you recognize his voice? Did he introduce himself as Ron Paul? Do you have caller ID that showed it was him? Was he calling from a cell phone? How to you know it was Ron Paul on the other end? Or who do you know that Ron Paul actually talked to and told them not to get on the bus? Those are pretty serious accusations.