I wouldn't be betting on him without getting some pretty good odds. He should have stayed a liberal and run as a Democrat.

However, his speech may have helped him. The fact is Romney is an attractive, articulate speaker. . . . who happens to hail from the most liberal state in the union.

My biggest beef with him is that to be the Governor of that State, he had to have sold his soul, many times over to be elected and then re-elected by the liberals that control the politics there.

Heck, even the Log Cabin Republicans are running ads showing his flip flopping positions on many conservative issues.

Huckabee has the pedigree to make it through the early primaries. Being a devote evangelical, who skirts the issues about creationism.

I like that Huckabee is supporting the Fair Tax, and that he is very articulate. I don't like him because he is probably not sincere about the fair tax, and has a history, apparently, of high taxes and doesn't understand illegal immigration.

Fred is still my man at this time. But its still early.

I agree that, in the long run, drawing attention to his religious beliefs is likely to hurt him.

There are lots of differences between Mormonism and garden variety evangelicalism, many or most of which are relatively benign.

Perhaps the most problematic is their overall view of God. For one thing, God is corporeal, having a physical body, which is a significant departure from main stream orthodox Christianity.

More significant than this, however, is the teaching, "What man is God once was; what God is man may become." The idea is that God was once a human such as ourselves, but he got a promotion. And those who play their cards right are in line for precisely the same promotion, with all of its privileges, including their own planets to manage and a key to the executive washroom.

The clear implication is that the difference between God and ourselves is one of degree rather than kind. It also implies that God is not the transcendent and ultimate Being as conceived by classical monotheism. In fact, what is ultimate is a sort of cosmic evolutionary process that includes both God and humanity.

(I've said before that if I thought this of God I might be more inclined to send him a Hallmark ("Congratulations on your promotion!") than to fall on my face in worship.)

All of this also pretty clearly implies polytheism--and a radical one at that--as the view invites the question of how many such "promotions" there have been and will be. And, while we are at it, polytheism is already present in their doctrine of the relation between Father and Son: they are two distinct gods (corporeal ones at that, making badminton a distinct possibility). (Romney didn't go quite this deep when he asserted that he believes that Jesus is God's son.)

For pretty obvious reasons, that little couplet expressing the divine-human continuity is not on LDS stationary or featured in those nice TV spots about family life.

My point in this is not to dwell on whether the Mormons have their views right or wrong (though I know it is obvious what I think, and that's fine). Rather, it is to agree with you that the more Mormon beliefs are brought into the light for close scrutiny, the more apparent will be the theological chasm that divides Mormonism from evangelicalism.

I myself am ambivalent about whether any of this should be relevant for assessing a presidential candidate. I do think I would have a hard time voting for a Voodoo practitioner, a "Raelian" or a Scientologist (John Travolta wins the California gubernatorial race, then, a few years later, announces his candidacy for president) just on the weirdness principle. And I can readily see how a better understanding of Mormon beliefs may drive evangelical voters into the arms of another candidate.

Also, I think there is hypocrisy in the fact that many will criticize those who have difficulty with Romney's Mormonism, but those same people may well be found saying that, say, Huckabee's commitment to "creationism" makes him unfit.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Sorry guys, but I accidentally used the log on "Muddle" when I wrote this reply. It was actually supposed to be under my real name. I use Muddle on occasion to keep you guys and gals off track about my positions.

Damn, sometimes I amaze myself at how very articulate my comments can be, when I sign on as Muddle. Which is why I'm way behind in my work.

Are you Muddle? What is your point? I don't think Muddle uses that language that you used that we are not permited to use. Don't insult him.. I hope someone at the citizen will do their job- we all don't use this language- is it permited?

But certain words, taken in context, have an impact that conveys more than paragraphs of sentences.

I can't imagine Rhett turning and looking at Scarlett and saying,

"Frankly, my dear Scarlett, I really am indifferent as to what you will do with your life, now that you have finally come to the realization that you actually love me, after all that we have been through. So instead, I'll just leave you and go on with my life and leave you to your own devices, without my interruptions. I mean, do you think that after all that I have done for you in the last many years, after all the love I've had for you and for our daughter Bonnie, that you might have figured that out years ago. But no, it just now occurs to you that you love me. Well to be honest, its too late. I can't see myself staying with someone that has been so oblivious to all that has transpired over the many years between us."

So, as I said, sometimes a single word, taken in context, really makes the point. . . but next time, I'll say darn, which, as you read this, doesn't really express the true meaning I had in my original post. Darn it! Argh!!! even now, saying it like that, makes me feel almost impotent. Oh well, this is a public forum, and I must remember my manners.

I myself am ambivalent about whether any of this should be relevant for assessing a presidential candidate.

Religion may influence a person’s decision - once inside the voting booth. But I don't think that a person’s religious belief should be the sole criteria for consideration of leadership in this country. The candidates record when dealing with issues that effect the citizens of our country and the world should be the main consideration. Thanks for the clarification of differences in belief between Mormonism and the 'evangelicals'. Good point regarding Huckabee.

I don't think I call anything religion- simply because the word religion can mean different things.

As far as voting, my morals, Belief in The true God does play a huge role in who I vote for- first God is over our universe. That all depends if you believe in God- Again- YOUR CHOICE, this is my opinion, I vote for the person who has my morals, believes in the God that rules our universe- and that I believe can run the country- believe me because you believe in God does not make one stupid, don't have a clue- it means we are not all powerful- that takes humbleness in the Almighty. Dependance on The Almighty we desperately need during all times. If we don't think so, we are in huge trouble.

. . .and voting your belief without fear is what makes America great. How a person treats others says volumes about their belief system (in my opinion) I feel humans 'reflect' the God they believe in.

I vote without FEAR- except that we have people who depend on their own whatever they think (power) is. That is scary.

Too bad you don't know me- MY BELIEF SYSTEM REFLECTS THE GOD I BELIEVE IN- untill you get to know me how can you judge me on that one? How do you know how I treat people-

I do believe life is precious. Everyone is important, would you like me to go on,.

Being a Christ follower does not make you a people hater, the opposite- a people lover, I am glad we live in a free country and can differ and vote for who we choose- Thank God for that or I couldn't vote for my choice.

I am just saying belief in God does not mean that makes you not a good President.

My statement was 'general' - and certainly not intended as a personal insult. I understand what you're saying. No disagreement at all - just sharing thoughts.

Thanks

Not sure who these people are!
I do appreciate you for once saying what you are against instead of just asking me a bunch of questions! Apparently you don't appreciate Mormonism (or Latter Day Saints, as they are officially known).
There does seem to be a lot of promotions available though: Regular guy (not woman) to Saint. Then to Bishop,. Archbishop, Leader (or is that second?), and then to semi-God in the sky.
Also, many acts by Saints are against the doctrine, but it can be OK if the husband and wife agree on a different course after careful prayer. Like preventing births, donating kidneys, etc.
Good evening Mrs. Wileey--care for some coffee, tea, or coke? as Barney Fife's nemesis once said.

Ah, but I'm sure who you are.

Apparently, you and $mith are in agreement. Here, you write,

I do appreciate you for once saying what you are against instead of just asking me a bunch of questions!

Three days ago he wrote,

"How does one turn off this fountain above? It just asks a lot of questions with a few hidden opinions! Typical "it is your Mother's fault."

Of course, $mith is just as incapable of understanding what was actually said as are you.

(Note that you aligned words from my post to make them say something I did not say)

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

The speech? I didn't think it helped at all politically. It will now draw more attention to the fact that he is a Mormon which will inevitably hurt him among the evangelicals and the news stories will point to tenets of his faith which are at odds with the beliefs of the Republican base.

He was speaking to the 'evangelicals' - and he received applause from thinking Americans who believe in the separation of church and state - and not the elimination of God from our thoughts. The writers of our Constitution were very wise, God-fearing men who wanted a country where ALL men would have the freedom to believe or not believe. Romney made it very clear that he would serve all Americans - and respect their right to worship or not worship as they please. If you still 'heard' him as a Morman - and not as an American - too bad. I'm not voting for him. But I'm impressed with how he handled a situation because of the lingering prejudice that this country has regarding those of a different faith.

I was just analyzing it from a purely political point of view: I don’t have a dog in that fight. However I believe your sentiments are not correct although I may be inferring something you may not have implied. True, he was speaking to the evangelicals, but the, “If you still 'heard' him as a Mormon - and not as an American - too bad.” isn’t right, in my opinion. He had to make the speech specifically because he is a Mormon, to address the questions of the evangelicals in his party. I believe the evangelicals were “hearing” him as a Mormon. His problem, which he gave the speech to try to address, is that unlike Kennedy (who spoke to assure people that he would not be ruled by his religious beliefs), Mitt has to prove to the evangelicals that he will be persuaded by his religious beliefs and that they are not too different from the evangelicals beliefs.

This is specifically a problem for him because of the nature of the Republican Party and their primary voters, not as you said, “the lingering prejudice that this country has regarding those of a different faith.” I don’t believe the country cares nearly as much as the Republican base does.

Anyway, it’ll be interesting to watch for the next few days when the evangelical leaders are interviewed, as they will be, and hear what they thought. Pat Robinson was willing to abandon every principle he ever pretended to have to go with Giuliani instead of Mitt specifically because of his being a Mormon. Let’s see what Robinson and his fellow travelers have to say.

I think you just don't like Republican's, Pat Robinson who else- and by the way I am not fond of liberals. So- tell me who you don't like.
I like Demoncrates if they are not liberal. Where are they, are they any???????????????????????????????????

But Robertson doesn’t define my party nor does he have much influence in it. What are the powers-that-be who speak for that wing of your party saying?

Randy Thomasson, president of the pro-life Campaign for Children and Families, told the Christian Post that "Pat Robertson is leading pro-family voters astray by abandoning moral standards for government," and, "This shocking news is a 180-degree turn by the founder of the Christian Coalition."

Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, announced that a protest would be held outside of Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network offices in Washington, D.C., stating that "I am literally sick to my stomach over Dr. Robertson's decision. This is what happens when a leader puts party ahead of principle; it corrupts ones ability to reason consistently."

Robert Tracinski of Real Clear Politics sees the endorsement as a sign of "a significant political retreat by the religious right".

Paul Weyrich, released his endorsement of Mitt Romney just before Robertson came out with his announcement. Weyrich recently told Newsmax, “I'm not for Giuliani. I want to try to stop him from getting the nomination."

I notice almost every one of your posts refers to your religion and more power to you for it. Can you honestly say that you are not going to be influenced by the fact that Mitt’s religion teaches that Jesus and Lucifer were half-brothers?

This stuff is specific to Republicans. Democrats don’t fight over this kind of thing. When the last Southern Baptist ran against a Mormon (Carter vs Udall) it was never mentioned. The nominal head of my party, Harry Reid, is a Mormon and I don’t know anyone who cares a whit.

I do enjoy you guys pulling out the long knives to use on each other but if Mitt gets the nomination then the Democratic nominee will never mention his religion.

Democratics do they have what you call religion?/ Yeah, some do, religion- that I don't have.

AS long as I write, the God I answer to you will read about because He is in my choices in every area of my life- NOT LIKE THE STUPID SONG- JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL WHEN I AM DESPERATE. The difference is daily.

Democrates don't fight.Ha.

Tell me the difference with "The Church of oprah" supporting who she wants, or Ellen, the list would go on forever. They need to keep their mouth closed- I don't give a hoot who they want.

Do you have a problem with this God thing? Sounds like it- believe me, I need God I mess up constantly- I have people on here that shove it to me all the time- I did not need them to- I already knew.

The good news is I am not perfect- just God. Hope and wish in your life time- you get to know Him.

I got news for you Southern Baptists some- vote Democrate, did you think they were all ?Republicans, Ha.

You know people say how much they hate President George W. Bush, how in the world did he get President again if he is so hated?

Idiots voted for Clinton twice- not one person has ever told me what he did to better our country- except when time came I had to explain to my child when asked by him when learned in school about his sucess, his lies under oath- women galore- I honestly think I would throw up first- power game is what that was. I felt sorry for my child to have to tell him yes, that's who ran our country at one timem. Are you proud of that?

What a legacy to pass on to the grandkids, if they have any.

By the way Jesus wasn't popular in His days, it's not me you don't like it's Him.

I think you missed my point and I am certain that I don't know what yours is so, in the spirit of the season, let us not argue. Neither of us will change the other's mind.

Merry Christmas bpr!
Peace on Earth
Good will toward man (and woman)

In the spirit of everyday life= let's not argue, we may disagree- but honestly I am not a mean spirited person- I don't like disagreements,
but we all see things in different ways.

Honestly it would drive me crazy if someone thought I thought bad of them, I try my best to think the best of everyone. Because I believe we all have hope.

Thanks again.

It's a shame that he even had to make the speech. He may have lost some of the evangelicals - but I think he gained a lot of respect from others in this country. I don't know that much about the Republican base - so, like you, I'll be interested in their reaction to Romney's speech. I'm wondering if Pat Robinson and his 'fellow travelers' have the political clout that they had four years ago. Time will tell. Are the evangelical beliefs that different from those articulated by Romney? Romney did not deny his respect for his own religious beliefs - and made it clear to me - that he was capable and knowledgeable enough about our Constitution to represent all Americans - under the law. (However - I won't be voting for him. LOL)

From the speech I read, Romney blathered some nonsense that sounded something like "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." This sounded to me like Romney was saying, "Hey Evangelical Right, I can be just as bigoted against and dismissive of people without faith as you are. Vote for me!”

In my opinion, this is a ridiculous position for Romney to take, being that (according to Gallup) there are about 5 times more atheists in this country than there are Mormons.

Why won't you be voting for him?

A registered Democrat can't vote in a Republican primary.