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 ...
Why would one be agitated to comment on what his church stands for? It's part of the deal running for POTUS.
Video link available at site.
As they say, the mike is always on, but now it is the camera that is always on, too.
Without his disclosure of his beliefs makes one question his intentions in office. Some might argue that it is a personal matter but I disagree when it comes to play with the POTUS. I believe it speaks volumns of a persons integrity when these questions are asked.
Mitt is a B/S’er
“Without his disclosure of his beliefs makes one question his intentions in office.”
I know all those words, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what is meant by putting them in that order.
Podcast - Get your Podcast!!
How about: If you don’t have the balls to tell me what you believe in I’m not going to give you the freak’n time of day. He wants to go around smiling, shaking hands with that hollywood smile and not answer the questions, screw him. That is the Mormans M.O. They will never answer the real questions or they have some b/s they make up to skirt the issue.
James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
As for me, come the Mormon Second Coming, I’m boarding that magical Nephite spaceship to take me to star Kolob, where the Mormon god Elohim will greet me in human form.
After all, I’ve got my temple recommend.
Dont forget the gold plated dinnerware and the white salamanders... LOL
From the transcript: " Again asking Romney to come back to show, Mickelson offered, "I hope we can do this so we can expend some quality time on here rather than the sound bytes."
"No, I don't like coming on the air and having you go after me and my church," Romney testily responded.
"I'm not going after your church; I agree with your church!" Mickelson replied somewhat incredulously.
"I'm not running as a Mormon," Romney came back, "and I get a little tired of coming on a show like yours and having it all about Mormon."
"See, I don't mind about it being all about that," Mickelson explained.
"I do. I do," Romney struck back.
The bickering went on, even as Romney was walking out the studio door and pointed out that he's "not running to talk about Mormonism."
That's gonna go over real well with the mormon voters...especially at the "Ask Mitt Anything" forums.
My sons tell me it's time to contribute to their blog with a dispatch from the campaign trail. Boy, are they working hard and having fun at the same time! Im told the Five Brothers blog is one of the most popular features on our web site. I guess I can't put this off any longer. This week I found myself in Iowa. At a forum in Sioux Center, attended by more than 250 people, I got the opportunity to answer questions from citizens. It's something we do regularly. We call them "Ask Mitt Anything" forums. Of course, as I tell audiences I meet with, "I don't know everything, but you can ask me anything."
From Five Brothers: The Romney Campaign Blog
This thread should get some kind of award for despicable religious bigotry, don’t you think or don’t you?
After reading a couple of posts, I agree...
Substitute Jews for Mormons and this lot would be permanently banned.
Wow! Mitt handles himself well in that Video! Very impressive. Especially considering when Jan Mickelson says that they are off the record!
Give me a break. When you are running to run this country all items of your life is on the table.
What if he was Islam, a Buddist, a Wiccan or a Christian,there is nothing wrong asking where he stands in his beliefs. Is it a test for the Presidency; no. But don’t b/s us when the question is asked.
Bigot, no, answers yes.
I’m a Mormon, and I am not strange, nor has my religion been debunked.
Not voting for someone based solely on their religious denomination is silly and childish, but to each his own.
I’m not voting for Mitt (unless he somehow inexplicably wins the nomination) because, in my view, he’s not conservative enough. (I also personally feel he’s not Mormon enough, but that alone wouldn’t sway my vote.)
Mickelson has a valid point that Mitt seems
By avoiding the elephant in the room (mormonism),
it makes Mitt look evasive and uncomfortable with
who he professes to be. It appears that way to
My own theory is that voters need to believe that
when they hear a candidate talk, he really believes
what they are hearing him say. Those with strong
convictions are recognized - and this is an “internal
consistency” test voters apply.
Clinton had a unique way of dealing with this...
He is such an accomplished liar, that when voters heard
him speak, they really believed that he believed the
things he was saying.
If Mitt continues this path, it makes him look evasive,
shifty, inconsistent, etc. I am not saying he is. But
it appears that he knows mormonism is such an issue that
he is avoiding talking about it in order to not make it
the focus. This will not be the easiest thing to deal
with no matter which path he takes.
I actually think he handled himself well, generally.
His problem was when he reacted to the suggestions
instead of hearing what Mickelson was trying to
communicate. How can he be an effective CEO, if he
doesn’t know how to listen???
Standard Disclosures Apply: I won’t vote for anyone
in a cult for POTUS, etc.
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.
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: Im 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.
Bears repeating. Doesn't improve the "diplomacy" image of Romney, either.
The wiggle room factor seems to be so wide for the public Mormon that one wonders if the private Mormon response to Mormonism is as the same, wide and broad for interpretation. The published documents from the religious texts of LDS are self-evidently anti-Orthodox Christianity yet the apologetics approach seems to be to vague everything out when confronted on a specific. Mitt did it and repeatedly did it in the 'off air' portion.
The Mormonism Apologists combing over threads at FR do it constantly. It appears to be a strategy that works when you can call someone a bigot for opposing Mormonism heresies, but that won't get off the runway against the DNC and their sycophantic media minions. Therein is the real danger of Mitt as nominee.
And the real danger for the country.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
You need to scroll up Working VIDEO? it was working before????
Jan Mickelson was the one being deceptive because he knew the what he did was not Kosher, he should apologize to Mitt, and Mitt came through a forthright gentleman!
I don’t remember Bill, Hillary, or any Democrat being interrogated that way. I thought Mitt handled himself well.
Bill Clinton flies off the handle at the mildest challenge, for example the Chris Wallace interview. If Hillary interrupted Mitt as this questioner did, she would come across very badly.
Yet, every cloud has a silver lining. I think the sheer vileness of some of his detractors makes Romney look better by comparison and attracts sympathizers to his side, as other threads of this ilk have done.
Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in its hand with a grip that kills it.
You don't believe that in a televised debate with Mitt and Hillary that the media would dare call her rude, do you?
If he can't handle rude, how's he gonna handle Chavez, Ahmanutjob of Iran, the press corps in a press conference? Helen Thomas and Martha Ratditz. You want rude, THEY'LL give you rude!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.