Skip to comments.Mitt unplugged
Posted on 08/04/2007 2:34:44 PM PDT by mmanager
Mitt Romney engaged in a heated discussion about his Mormon faith with a prominent Des Moines talk show host off the air on Thursday morning. The contentious back-and-forth between Romney and WHO's Jan Mickelson began on the air (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv) when the former governor appeared on the popular program that has become a regular stop for GOP presidential hopefuls. But the conversation spilled over to a commercial break and went on after the program ended, where a visibly annoyed Romney spoke in much greater detail about his church's doctrines than he is comfortable doing so in public.
The footage was captured by the station's in-studio camera and posted on its website. But Romney, who is careful to portray a sunny and upbeat public image, clearly did not know he was being recorded. The candidate reveals a private side that is at turns cutting, combative and sarcastic, but most of all agitated at being forced to defend what he and his church stand for.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Yikes! I have some snow white albino channel catfish in my pond out back.
I’ll bet the Mormons will be trying to steal them on their way to Missouri.
-—Give me a break.-—
The same kind of break you and others are giving Mitt? There are honest questions and there is deceitful bigotry. I think this is the latter. That’s where I stand.
“but most of all agitated at being forced to defend what he and his church stand for.”
If it’s just a normal ole Christian Church, why be agitated about speaking on it?
No, it speaks volumes about those, such as yourself, who insist on bringing religious 'belief' and mythology into the public political debate.
I'll make the assumption that you are Christian. Have you asked the Christian candidates to expound on their 'beliefs'? By 'beliefs' you don't mean values, you mean customs, practices, and narratives (sometimes mythologies).
Surely there are huge differences in this realm between even the Christian candidates. Among the Republican candidates, there are three Roman Catholics, three Baptists, one Episcopalian, one Presbyterian, and whatever brand of Christianity Fred subscribes to.
Does Guiliani believe remarrying after a spouse dies is adultery?
Does Tancredo believe in the story of Noah's Ark?
Does Thompson think the 10 commandments were replaced by a new law in the New Testament?
How does McCain believe end time events will transpire?
These are pointless, juvenile questions on their face and in substance.
Will you judge these candidates personal integrity based on the relative distance of their 'beliefs' from yours?
Once you mature in your spiritual life, you'll learn that values are MUCH more important than what you call 'beliefs'.
I agree, three.
I don’t understand why a talk show host would deny a valued guest the time to talk. David Frost allowed his guests to have their say. Robert Novak hosted a little known interview show several years ago. He allowed his guests, liberal or conservative, to express themselves without interruption.
I saw Mitt here and he is right. You can have views that guide your life without trying to make it the law for everyone else. Whether it is drinking, adultery, smoking, charging interest, lack of tact, shooting coyotes - or not, or anything else, your rules for yourself need not be the law for all. This seems a pretty basic distinction that everyone should understand. This distinction is central to the concept of tolerance.
I once saw Mitt briefly on 60 minutes as I was flipping channels. Mitt tried to explain that his actions as President might differ in a particular case from his actions as Governor. That was brushed off. Hello 60 minutes, ever here of the 10th amendment? Federalism? States should have powers are denied to the federal Government. Before Roe v Wade, different states had different laws on abortion. Georgia and New York are different. Georgians and New Yorkers like it that way. So one might support a law in Massachusetts that one should never think to inflict upon the nation as a whole.
Mitt is smart enough to make valid distinctions. Many of his detractors just can’t keep up. In many cases, it seems they are seeing red and just can’t see or think straight.
“Substitute Jews for Mormons and this lot would be permanently banned.”
Jews don’t get agitated when asked questions about the religion. Matter-of-fact, they are happy to talk about it if asked.
I could vote for Romney, although I would not want to. I certainly would not vote against him based on his religion. That said, I think the questions Mikelson asked were in no way offensive, but were designed to reconcile public positions he has taken which appear to be at odds with his faith and to explore the reasons for his recent conversion to a prolife position (which Romney said was based upon “secular” reasons, whatever that means).
I thought Romney was petulant and arrogant in the clip. He was thin skinned and evasive. It reminded me of Bob Dole telling George Bush to “stop lying about my record”. If you are going to get angry, it should be for a good reason and you should always be in control. Romney was not. (Reagan in the 1980 Nashua debate: “I’m paying for this microphone...” comes to mind. It also helps to pick your targets. Jan Mikelson is a very popular conservative radio host in Iowa and a dustup with him on the eve of the Ames straw poll cannot be good strategy if you are trying to woo conservatives who are skittish about you anyway.
I thought the time for Romney to show some righteous anger would have been when Mike Wallace asked him that incredibly rude question about whether he had premarital sex with his wife. Instead he just laughed nervously and changed the subject. That was a real opportunity missed, but it told me that Romney is too wishy washy and will say whatever is necessary to get elected. He is not a real leader. I can’t imagine Fred Thompson or George W. Bush (or the Gipper for that matter) not clobbering the liberal Wallace for such a question, which would be applauded by all conservatives and nost every decent American
Romney is “agitated” because he keeps getting the religious equivalent of “have you stopped beating your wife?” questions.
I’m not a big Romney supporter for many reasons, but fair is fair.
There is no bigotry here. Mormon ideas are so nonsensical on their face that anyone with a passing knowledge of the Bible and a wisp of common sense would with ease judge them to be totally bogus. Rejecting Mormon heresies is the Christian thing to do, and the Bible instructs us to do this.
The posts referred to were not asking questions. They were making ugly slanders for the sake of ridicule. Did you read the thread?
“Why would one be agitated to comment on what his church stands for? It’s part of the deal running for POTUS.”
No it’s not. He’s not running for Bishop. He’s running for President. He doesn’t have to answer the question what his Church’s views are. He only has to answer the question what his own views are.
Ok so they take the New Testament and go off on a tangent from there with the Book of Mormon. The New Testament does not allow for the addition of these writings in the 19th century as an addendum to it. The thing that distinguishes Christianity from Mormonism is the book of Mormon, and therein lies all the bogusness. You are right but I am righter...
I watched the video and I liked the way Gov. Romney handled himself. He has skills and strength that a president would need.
It’s bigotry. If someone were making that sort of ruthless and offensive "fun" your beliefs you wouldn’t stand for it (I would hope). Many are dead because others didn’t have any understanding or respect for their beliefs.
The game is try to shame you into shutting up so the Mormonism question gets shoved aside and Mitt gets the nomination. It will work for a time, but the DNC is not about to let bigotry bullies (those calling folks bigots because they have questions reagrding the heresies in Mormonism) squelch the single biggest negative of their opponent. If Mitt gets the nomination, the democrats will hold everything, including a filibuster proof majority in the Seante because conservative voters will stay away in just a small enough percentage to hand the elections to democrats, sadly. You are being bullied by a team effort which surfaces on every Romney thread. Ridicule, condescension, and deception are the current tools of the Mormonism apologetics team pushing Romney, trying to get him over the top.
Tbe Bible instructs to beware of false prophets.
Jeremiah 14:15 Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you **false visions,** divinations, idolatries [a] and the delusions of their own minds. (that hits close to home)
15 Therefore, this is what the LORD says about the prophets who are prophesying in my name: I did not send them, yet they are saying, ‘No sword or famine will touch this land.’ Those same prophets will perish by sword and famine.
16 And the people they are prophesying to will be thrown out into the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and sword. There will be no one to bury them or their wives, their sons or their daughters. I will pour out on them the calamity they deserve.
To point out the false Mormon prophets is not bigotry but is indeed the work of the Lord.
If Mitt should make it to the general election, do you really believe that in a debate with Hillary he would be handled with the kid gloves you want? Mitt better be ready for prime time by then. His off air demeanor indicates he isn't there yet.