Lehigh@globe.com wrote:
Stephanie,
Well, one reason I wrote about Mitt is that he is the governor of the state where my paper is based. But are Reid and Ellison trying to tap their religion's organizations to benefit they campaigns? I haven't seen those news reporters.
Scot
I'm not understanding if your problem is with the money Romney is accepting from a religious resource that shares his values, or with his religion itself. If its the former, then its a very shallow argument, since politicians have been accepting both money and endorsement from religious institutions since the founding of this country and have managed to keep themselves from becoming "puppets" of the church. If its the latter then my question regarding Reid and Ellison if perfectly valid, since the issue is not money but religious affiliation.
Why is asking money from people who share his religion wrong? Since when have the Democrats lived by that standard? The reason Mitt went to Jeffrey R. Holland is that Holland is a former President of Brigham Young University and thus has contacts with the people he was trying to raise support from. The Mormon church has historically taken a neutral stance on politics. They deny they did anything wrong here. So who am I going to believe? My church leaders who have a proven track record of neutrality or a bowtied bumkisser with a proven political axe to grind?
Is Mr. Romney trying to do so? I have not seen that report either. I would be very surprised indeed if the LDS Church took any part in his campaign.
Although I am a "Mormon", Mitt Romney would not be my first choice as a candidate. That said, I see Mr. Lehigh's comments as a thinly-veiled attack on a Republican who may be the closest thing to a conservative who is likely to come out of Massachusetts. The religious issue is just a convenient excuse to attack.