Posted on 10/18/2007 2:08:41 PM PDT by Signalman
As an evangelical professor of Bible and theology, I have decided to support Mitt Romney for President (even though he is a Mormon) for two old-fashioned reasons: First, he is the best-qualified candidate, and second, he holds moral and political values consistent with those in the Bible.
Best-qualified: The best predictor of future performance is a person’s past track record. Romney’s record is stellar:
Intellectual ability: He was in the top 5 percent of his class at Harvard Business School and simultaneously in the top 1/3 of his class at Harvard Law School. He is incredibly intelligent.
Governor of Massachusetts: He won the governor’s race as a Republican in Massachusetts and restored financial discipline to the state. He was a successful governor of a liberal state. This also means he has a good shot at winning some New England states away from the Democrats in the general election.
Business success: He was hired by Bain & Company, one of the elite business consulting firms in the country, and was so successful that he became a partner. He then founded Bain Capital and made it a highly successful investment company. He built a personal fortune of around $200,000,000 in the process, an amazing business achievement. He knows how to run businesses, and what makes them profitable. This indicates a deep and also practical understanding of what kind of policies will be helpful or harmful to an economy, and second, an outstanding management ability proven in both state government and in business, which is a good predictor of ability to be an excellent President. By contrast, no Democratic candidate has ever run a business, a state or even a city.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
It’s still early. At this stage in the 92 election, Clinton was a joke even to the democRats. I’ll support my preferred candidates in order of preference. I’d be pickled tink with Fred as Pres, though.
LOL! RDS. I think it is better called MDS. :-)
Well said on all points.
That was thirteen years ago! Political beliefs evolve over time. There's not a man alive who hasn't changed his mind about some political issue in 13 years.
Romney handed out pink fliers at a gay pride festival supporting their agenda.
Nope. He just wished them a happy day, and that they should have equal rights.
Why do you find that so objectionable? Do you not support equal rights for gays?
Or is it the happy day part you object to? Do you wish misery upon all gays?
Romney stated he supported the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy as a stepping stone to gays serving openly in the military.
Again, ancient history from 1994. The policy as it is now works pretty well. Like many others, he's willing to stick with what works.
Romney did nothing to support a marriage amendment.
Sorry, but that's a lie. He campaigned for it long and hard. Forcing a vote on it in the legislature (which wanted to let it quietly die) was one of his last acts as governor.
The diety of christ is not a moral issue, it is a theological one.
The jews do not believe in the diety of Jesus, but they have a biblical moral code. I believe they can’t live up to it and therefore are doomed without Jesus. SOME christians (like apparently Jerry Falwell) believe that jews CAN get to heaven.
But that’s a theological question, not a moral one.
Mormons also generally follow the same biblical moral code.
Romney said he’d be BETTER for gays than Kennedy.
Do you NOT BELIEVE that? Is not conservatism much better for EVERYBODY than the rediculous programs of the left?
Romney never said he would implement a “gay agenda”, nor did he ever do so as Governor.
Well, you could get into a religious argument over it.
Or you could just admit that you were wrong when you claimed that if Romney stood in a Mormon “church” and said he believed Jesus was God, he’d be “excommunicated”.
If you then want to argue that you would never vote for a person who wasn’t a Christian as you believe that term, that’s fine, but you should refrain from telling other people what OTHER other people believe when you don’t understand their belief, or know them.
I’m fine with you arguing that the Mormon faith is not Christian. I’ve seen people argue that Catholic Church is not Christian.
But that doesn’t mean that individuals in the Catholic Church, or the Mormon Church, could not have experienced the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ, even if they still cling to what most people would consider invalid theological beliefs.
Nothing in the Bible guarantees that once you are saved, you will have perfect knowledge in this life.
In my Bible Jesus specifically says he hates false doctrine and that we should also.
I’m not going to re-enter this discussion after having been called a bigot. The water of reason from which we would draw has been poisoned on this thread. If you want to engage on that discussion, open another thread. Suffice it to say, I do not agree with the aim of the article, and I do not think evangelicals should support Mitt Romney.
My apologies. I hadn’t noticed I had stumbled into an older thread, I don’t usually post to threads if they aren’t active.
Do you NOT BELIEVE that? Is not conservatism much better for EVERYBODY than the rediculous programs of the left?”
That’s just about the most convoluted spin I’ve ever seen posted. I suppose if Guiliani said he would be “better” for abortionists than Hillary it would mean that he was pro-life? Please.
I hear crickets chirping...............
No, that would be stupid.
“convoluted spin”? Haven’t you heard it regularly said by conservatives that if blacks would wake up, they’d realise that conservative princples are much better for them?
If a republican says to a black organization, I’ll be better for you than the democrats, you think that republican is saying he’ll support the “black agenda”? No, he’s saying that conservative principles are better for blacks than the pandering the liberals do.
Most gays don’t really care about “gay marriage” (look at how few got married in Mass). They aren’t even running in droves to civil unions. They DO care about security, low taxes, economic growth. And the conservatives are better at all those things that REALLY matter.
So no, it’s not spin. It’s the truth. It’s the message we need to give to hispanics, to blacks, to gays, to lesbians, even to pro-abortion voters — even though our party is officially against their “agenda”, they should support conservative candidates, because on all the things that REALLY matter and effect lives, conservatives are a much better choice than liberals.
Of course, if you just want to support candidates who tell everybody who isn’t a white male heterosexual christian to go away and leave us alone, you can do that — but your candidate is not going to win any elections.
I have not seen anyone, on this board at least, hate or smear any Mormon individual. If someone hates Mormon doctrine it is not inconsistent, or hateful, for them to decide they would not vote for a Mormon on that basis. There are no religious tests for voters either and they can make thier electoral decisions on any basis they want, religious or otherwise. Certainly such a position is not "refusing to work cooperatively" with anyone. You seem to equate passionate disagreement with Mormonism with hating and smearing Mormons.
I posted about Romney's past support of gays. How did race, gender and religion get into this?
You posted that what Romney really meant when he said "I'll Be Better Than Ted Kennedy on Gay Rights." is that he would help gays because a conservative anti-gay rights position is better for them? If you can say this with a straight face, I think you have a problem.
As has been argued before, conservatives believe in full equality for all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation. Equality means equality of opportunity, equality of the law, and equality of government intervention.
Now, this was in 1994, and I'm not arguing that Romney in 1994 was a conservative. If Romney had said in 1994 that he supported gay marriage, it wouldn't change the fact that today he opposes it. Holding a candidate to a position they had 13 years earlier when they've changed isn't smart.
But we also shouldn't misrepresent what was said by candidates, even 13 years ago.
Romney never supported Gay marriage, which was what many liberals claimed an "equality" issue for Gays. So obviously Romney wasn't talking about THAT kind of equality, which was in fact special rights.
I'm not arguing that Romney wasn't more tolerant of gays than maybe some people here would be, or would like of a candidate. I can't speak to the man's heart now, much less of his heart from 1994. He wasn't asked about a lot of things we care about NOW, because 1994 was different than 2007.
I know he's been grilled on the subject NOW. And his answers have angered the Log Cabin Republicans enough that they ran ads AGAINST him, something they don't normally do even against nominally anti-gay republicans (they understand the score).
As to my other point, yes, you didn’t go there, that was more of a general theme of mine. Others have argued against pandering to hispanics, pandering to blacks, pandering to women. I’m just wrapping that all together, along with those who have said they want to run the Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani supporters out of our party.
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.