Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Mitt Romney’s love for America a Mormon thing?
The Washington Post ^ | May 11, 2012 | Michelle Boorstein,

Posted on 05/13/2012 6:30:04 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

When it comes to American exceptionalism, Mitt Romney is going all in.

His book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness” is a love song to the idea that this country merits “the protection of Providence” and has a singular “calling” to be a beacon for freedom. A major theme for him on the campaign trail is the nation’s divine destiny, a heritage Romney said has made him “stand a little taller, a little straighter” when overseas.

But what Romney doesn’t say is that, for followers of his made-in-America religion, Mormonism, exceptionalism isn’t political metaphor. It’s theology.

The faith’s sacred text, the Book of Mormon, describes the United States as “a land of promise . . . a land which is choice above all other lands.” It describes Jesus coming down from heaven, to America, and teaching to people there. Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder and prophet, quotes God as saying that he established the U.S. Constitution. Mormons’ Garden of Eden is in Missouri. Their version of the hajj begins in Upstate New York and ends in Illinois.

Other post-Reagan candidates may passionately preach beliefs like Romney’s, but he’s the only one who can say American exceptionalism is his religion.

Except he doesn’t.

.........Romney’s reticence on the subject of God and country makes him a typical Mormon. Persecuted by the government in the 1800s, Mormons grew wary of how to merge their faith with their love for the land it blesses....

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: amexceptionalism; mormon; nationalism; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last
Interesting piece.
1 posted on 05/13/2012 6:30:13 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Is Barack Obama's hate for America a communist thing?

Is Barack Hussein Obama's hate for America a muslim thing?

2 posted on 05/13/2012 6:33:17 AM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; Colofornian; Elsie; Godzilla; Tennessee Nana

ping.


3 posted on 05/13/2012 6:33:58 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

The bright line in the political landscape sand?


4 posted on 05/13/2012 6:34:57 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

How come not a single member of Willard’s immediate family going back who knows how long has NEVER put on the uniform ? All those healthy sons of his... not a one. And he claimed their working on his campaign was the EQUIVALENT of serving their country.

Dump this Socialist asshat before its too late.


5 posted on 05/13/2012 6:42:24 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; zot; Interesting Times; SeraphimApprentice; Alamo-Girl; kristinn

No, it is the “think” that most American kids had in the 1950s, who leaned love of country from parents, families, and schools. The communists who infliltrated society and colleges got to the American college students in the 60s and started teaching their communist ideology and leading a rebellion against American society and beliefs. That has lead us to today’s nation where those who believe in American Exceptionalism are, in HBOs words: “those bitter enders who cling to their Bibles and guns.”


6 posted on 05/13/2012 6:43:24 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

>>Is Mitt Romney’s love for America a Mormon thing?

Was the state of Deseret’s attempt to secede and appoint itself a king an expression of its love for America?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Mormon+Secession

No.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the words “TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS”, I expect he had mind religious frauds like Myth Romney and his merry band of Reformed Egyptian Kolobians — from which, the rights of Individuals need to be secured.

Quack Waddle...

“FALLIBLE AND UNINSPIRED MEN HAVE ASSUMED DOMINION OVER THE FAITH OF OTHERS”

...oh look, it’s a Doctrine of Blood Atonement Duck.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Mormon+doctrine+of+Blood+Atonement


7 posted on 05/13/2012 6:46:38 AM PDT by wm25burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar
Believing in American exceptionalism infuriates the Left.
8 posted on 05/13/2012 6:50:49 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Clever hit piece anything comming out of WAPO justs boosts up Romney’s %


9 posted on 05/13/2012 7:10:08 AM PDT by mosesdapoet (The best way to punish a - country is let professors run it. Fredrick the Great p/p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar; betty boop; xzins; P-Marlowe; Cincinatus' Wife; zot; Interesting Times; ...
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear GreyFriar!

The communists who infliltrated society and colleges got to the American college students in the 60s and started teaching their communist ideology and leading a rebellion against American society and beliefs.

Communism is a-theistic at the root (Marx et al). Therefore the re-education of America was enabled by the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) which found the words of God in publicly funded schools are unconstitutional.

Mary had a little lamb
His fleece was white as snow.
And everywhere that Mary went,
The Lamb was sure to go.

He followed her to school each day,
T'wasn't even in the rule.
It made the children laugh and play,
To have a Lamb at school.

And then the rules all changed one day,
illegal it became;
To bring the Lamb of God to school,
Or even speak His Name.

Every day got worse and worse,
And days turned into years.
Instead of hearing children laugh,
We heard gun shots and tears.

What must we do to stop the crime,
That's in our schools today?
Let's let the Lamb come back to school,
And teach our kids to pray!

Wrensworld

God's Name is I AM.

10 posted on 05/13/2012 7:49:29 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
Romney's Liberty University Commencement Speech
11 posted on 05/13/2012 7:50:16 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; Bushbacker1; GreyFriar; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; P-Marlowe
Mitt Romney's roots are certainly as deeply founded in the Mormon brand of conservatism as is any Bob Jones University acolyte's in the fundamentalist Baptist context.

His residence in Belmont, MA from the late 1960's - 1970's is particularly coincidental. The John Birch Society, founded by Robert Welch, was at the time based in Belmont, MA.

From 1963 - 1974, every 4th of July holiday, the John Birch Society together with other conservative groups at the time held the equivalent of the "CPAC" of its day at what was then known as The Statler Hilton (now the Park plaza) in Boston. This was called "The New England Rally for God, Family, and Country." (chairman of which was JBS's Col. Lawrence Bunker of Wellesley Hills, MA)

It was an annual gathering of "conservatism in the wilderness" of the post-Kennedy assassination era, and 1964 Goldwater election rout, where one could hear speeches of conservative authors (e.g., Taylor Caldwell, W. Cleon Skousen, George Schuyler) politicians (e.g. John Ashbrook, John Schmitz, etc.), ex-gov't conservatives (e.g., Dan Smoot, ex-FBI),Hollywood actors (e.g. Walter Brennan), musicians, academics, WFBuckley's "Young Americans for Freedom," The Bible-Science Association, and "Liberty Lobby." Featured also were religious schools and institutions (e.g., Bob Jones U, Shelton College), "Christian Crusade" (i.e., Billy James Hargis)and a significant presense of Mormons -- Christian and Mormon "End-timers," predominantly.

The JBS slogan, "Will you be free in '73?" was everywhere.

We evangelical Christians had great fun debating the Mormon Missionaries sent to this event to promote “that book” written by Joseph Smith.

A bumper sticker booth at "The Rally", 1970 (no, that's not a picture of me)

Photobucket

Bible Science Association

Photobucket American Education Lobby

Photobucket

Liberty Lobby

Photobucket

I mentioned W. Cleon Skousen, author of the exposé-itory conservative tome: The Naked Communist, and a book widely advertised and promoted not only by JBS in their American Opinion and Review of the News publications but also prompted widely by Liberty Lobby and other alternative conservative publications sources.

A little history on Skousen from Wiki: by the way that is Willard Cleon Skousen for all those pointing up that aspect of Mitt's name,

"He was also a prolific popularizer among Latter-day Saints (Mormons) of their theology. A notable anti-communist and supporter of the John Birch Society,[3] Skousen's works involved a wide range of subjects including the Six-Day War, Mormon eschatology, New World Order conspiracies, and parenting.[4] His most popular works are The 5,000 Year Leap and The Naked Communist. A book by Skousen on end times prophecy, The Cleansing of America, was published by Valor Publishing Group in 2010, four years after his death.[5]

"In 1926, Skousen went to the Mormon colony, Colonia Juarez, Mexico for two years to help his seriously ill grandmother. While there, he attended the Juarez Academy. Skousen then returned to California, graduating from high school in 1930. At the age of 17 he traveled to Great Britain as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[7][8]"

Recall Mitt's father, Gov. George Romney. Wiki on George:

"Romney was born to American parents living in the Mormon colonies in Mexico; events during the Mexican Revolution forced his family to flee back to the United States when he was a child. The family lived in several states and ended up in Salt Lake City, Utah, where they struggled during the Great Depression. Romney worked in a number of jobs, served as a Mormon missionary in England and Scotland, and attended several colleges in the U.S. but did not graduate from any.

The JBS/Skousen - Romney - Mexico - UK/Scotland Mormon Mission stuff is coincidental in a forensic sense and though short of absolute, definitive connection, one has to wonder what influences and interactions Mitt Romney of Belmont MA had with pre-Reagan conservatism.

Granted, even if there was a Skousen - George Romney connection going back to Mexico Mormonism and UK Mormon Missions, George tended to tack to the "moderate" wing as opposed to the Goldwater wing. He did serve as Nixon's HUD Sec'y for a time.

That said, if someone like me was able to meet W. Cleon Skousen, is there a chance that Mitt Romney actually knew him and not just casually? By many accounts Mitt Romney was a leader in his Mormon faith walk - a church whose faith in many ways (some correct and some incorrect) affirms American supremacy? In many ways he was an active, not a casual participant in promoting what at its core espouses political and social conservatism.

So, I have written all that history not to say that I remember seeing Mitt Romney at the God Family and Country Rallies of the '60's and '70's almost all of which I attended for 11 years, but it is my guess that Mitt Romney should he rise to the US Presidency will be looked at by the American left as one who was a Trojan Horse in their midst.

Let me be very clear again: I am an evangelical Christian and staunch conservative from way back. This is not in any way an endorsement in any way of Mormonism as religion. Where conservatism and American supremacy is the issue we are allied with their conservative positions, though most of us are not aligned with them on religious terms. I knew that 40 years ago.

What I am saying is that if Mitt Romney is given the freedom to tack toward what is his core, and not placed in the position of doing only what he can with a 90% (D) legislature like he had as Governor of Massachusetts, I think we might all be surprised to see how much of a core conservatism might actually reside there.

FReegards!


12 posted on 05/13/2012 8:18:29 AM PDT by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wm25burke
Was the state of Deseret’s attempt to secede and appoint itself a king an expression of its love for America?

If the actions of one in the past color someone in the future, then all Catholics are as dirty as hell. Just sayin'.

13 posted on 05/13/2012 8:46:15 AM PDT by The Iceman Cometh (Proud Teabagging Barbarian Terrorist Hobbit Son-of-a-Bitch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

” Is Barack Obama’s hate for America a communist thing?

Is Barack Hussein Obama’s hate for America a muslim thing? “

Therrrre ya go!


14 posted on 05/13/2012 9:10:10 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

How does the Mexican chicken ranch fit into this narrative again? Or is that edited out along with the Marriott porno flicks?


15 posted on 05/13/2012 10:20:54 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Obama's record is an open charnel pit. Romney's too, but under a whitened sepulchre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

“How come not a single member of Willard’s immediate family going back who knows how long has NEVER put on the uniform?”

Dunno. Willard’s daddy was too busy pimping Saul Alinsky. That accounts for one I guess. The other two generations were busy little roosters at the Mexican chicken ranch I believe.

300,000,000 million people in the country and the two Washington parties come up with the weirdest fringe freaks in our history, and at the same time.


16 posted on 05/13/2012 10:27:15 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Obama's record is an open charnel pit. Romney's too, but under a whitened sepulchre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
"300,000,000 million people in the country and the two Washington parties come up with the weirdest fringe freaks in our history, and at the same time."

Things that make you go, "Hmmmm..." Now, I don't want to claim a 'bipartisan' big gubmint cabal is to blame... that'd be about as obvious as claiming the sky is blue.

17 posted on 05/13/2012 10:34:48 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
What I am saying is that if Mitt Romney is given the freedom to tack toward what is his core, and not placed in the position of doing only what he can with a 90% (D) legislature like he had as Governor of Massachusetts, I think we might all be surprised to see how much of a core conservatism might actually reside there.

What you are saying is that he has no principles whatsoever.

18 posted on 05/13/2012 11:57:04 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Virgil Goode! Because everyone else is Bad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
.


Mitt Romney "does not" love America ...

Mitt Romney loves, POWER, WEALTH and the anti-Christ mormon cult ...

This isn't hyperbole ... It's simply a "fact" ...



Myth Romney would be as comfortable "ruling" Soviet Russia, Romania, East Germany (under the Stassi) or Red China ...

as he would the large democracy located in North America ...

After all ... "subjects" are just "subjects" ...



.
19 posted on 05/13/2012 12:21:55 PM PDT by Patton@Bastogne (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will DEFEAT the Obama-Romney Socialist Gay-Marriage Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Mitt Romney, his father and his mother, all were liberals (even pro-abortion) at their core, patriotism as we see it is not part of their make-up, they don’t even like us, the Romneys were and are anti-middle America, anti-Christian, anti-conservative, anti-serving in the military, anti-Reagan.

Nixon wanted George to run for that Senate seat to get him out of his administration.


20 posted on 05/13/2012 12:30:19 PM PDT by ansel12 ( A Mormon Bishop is defending our bible defined "one man, one woman" marriage argument)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144; fieldmarshaldj
300,000,000 million people in the country and the two Washington parties come up with the weirdest fringe freaks in our history, and at the same time.

It really does make you wonder how the two main parties can produce candidates who are pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, and pro-gun control and who would like to take us down the road to socialism.
21 posted on 05/13/2012 12:36:02 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144
300,000,000 million people in the country and the two Washington parties come up with the weirdest fringe freaks in our history, and at the same time.

Ain't that the truth.

In regards to redefining marriage for instance, think about it.

We have a Mormon Bishop, of a royal family of the original founders of a polygamous cult of which he is a prominent leader and representitive, that threw out the biblical definition of “one man, one woman” as wrong, and unbiblical.

He will be defending our position on why "one man, one woman" is a bible absolute, and cannot be challenged.

I hope that he is not asked any awkward questions regarding how his church leadership met the challenges of the Christian opposition to their pro-redefining marriage arguments not so long ago.

22 posted on 05/13/2012 12:36:28 PM PDT by ansel12 ( A Mormon Bishop is defending our bible defined "one man, one woman" marriage argument)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Iceman Cometh
If the actions of one in the past color someone in the future, then all Catholics are as dirty as hell. Just sayin'.

Were our fellow American Catholics doing a lot of that sort of thing here in America, 60 years before Reagan was born?

23 posted on 05/13/2012 12:43:53 PM PDT by ansel12 ( A Mormon Bishop is defending our bible defined "one man, one woman" marriage argument)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

My Fathers family is LDS and WE have fought in EVERY WAR This Country has engaged in from 1776 until last week.


24 posted on 05/13/2012 12:48:49 PM PDT by Little Bill (Sorry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Little Bill

Too bad Willard and his family thinks military service is for suckers and peons.


25 posted on 05/13/2012 1:18:02 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Well, I'm glad I don't have to go to such sites as Dummy Underground, DailyKossak Kids, Media Matters, etc. to get my dose of Hate Romney/Mormons attack pieces; all I have to do (of late) is peruse the posting of a few Freepers and it is deja vu all over again.

Yep, lets try and convince as many CONSERVATIVE Freepers to stay home and/or write in another candidate's name out of "principles" and if and when Dear Leader is re-elected, well, we can always rest comfortably knowing we did our little part in keeping that eeeevil, rabid, despicable, hate-filled MONSTER, Mitt Romney from having had a chance to do what Barack Hussein Obama already has been doing for the past 3 1/2 years (THOUGH NOTHING IN ROMNEY'S BACKGROUND THRU WORDS OR DEEDS EVEN HINT AT SAME)......DESTROY our Great Republic.

Makes sense to me. /sarc!

26 posted on 05/13/2012 2:50:57 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; af_vet_rr

What is not being mentioned is the gallant military service of Mormons in the United States - against the US army: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/bancroftshistoryofutah_chapter19.htm


27 posted on 05/13/2012 2:57:18 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to forgive+save you,+live....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Were our fellow American Catholics doing a lot of that sort of thing here in America, 60 years before Reagan was born?

Sorry, not being a wise guy, but I'm not sure what your point is.

28 posted on 05/13/2012 3:05:18 PM PDT by The Iceman Cometh (Proud Teabagging Barbarian Terrorist Hobbit Son-of-a-Bitch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

Cry me a river. Pimp a deceitful Socialist like Willard on a Conservative website and don’t act surprised when people get pissed off.


29 posted on 05/13/2012 3:06:49 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Iceman Cometh; wm25burke

See, I didn’t understand your post that seem to be comparing American Catholics to American Mormons.

Post 7 had something about fairly recent American history related to the modern cult, Mormonism, and you said something I didn’t understand, so I asked you if American Catholics were doing the same stuff here as was described about Mormons in post 7 since you seemed to saying so.

Were our fellow American Catholics doing a lot of that sort of thing mentioned in post 7, here in America, 60 years before Reagan was born, like the Mormons were?


30 posted on 05/13/2012 3:17:39 PM PDT by ansel12 ( A Mormon Bishop is defending our bible defined "one man, one woman" marriage argument)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet
my dose of Hate Romney/Mormons attack pieces;

Let's not be political neophytes. Everyone knew that attacks on his Mormonism would be one vulnerability that Romney brought to the table.

Now that it's starting to rear its head we shouldn't be appalled. This is just the beginning of what will be thrown at Romney.

I am no Romney supporter, and I never will be a Romney supporterl. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with his mormonism. That doesn't mean that democrats won't attack his mormonism. Of course they will. They'll attack anything that might peel off even 1% of his potential support.

So, be prepared for a subtle anti-mormon barrage that will sharply escalate between now and november. The same will happen with Romney's wealth, with Romney's Bain Capital years, with his flip/flops....with anything that looks like a vulnerability.

The only rule in this presidential politics game is "win".

31 posted on 05/13/2012 3:49:25 PM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode not Evil (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
What you are saying is that he has no principles whatsoever.

I write this:

"I think we might all be surprised to see how much of a core conservatism might actually reside there."

And you write that?

Romney might actually be a stealth candidate from the right and you are worried about him not announcing that -- just doing what could be done as he could do it well-behind enemy lines. It's a lot easier to be a vocal outstanding conservative politician in Georgia than in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is a lot like Vichy France: would you have criticized a mayor of a town in the Vichy, who, while he outwardly appeared to support the Nazis actually did what he could do to oppose the totalitarian regime as best he could?

What I am saying is that I speak as one who lived through an era in New England where Kennedy liberalism took a mesmerizing hold of what was once one of the most Republican states in the nation from a time post-Civil War until 1952 when JFK entered the Senate.

You are in California and from what I have read here on FR, also one who left Mormonism for evangelical Christianity. Welcome! I applaud that change of heart and faith walk.

In the last 45 years California was blessed with 2 terms of Reagan as governor (exception being his legalizing abortion); you had Prop 13, Pete Wilson, Prop 187, alot of back and forth with conservatism rising and falling and rising and falling in the arena of CA politics. Orange County is still largely conservative in spite of the loss of Bob Dornan back in the mid - 90's. You are in a real bad spot now, I agree, but I believe you still have a viable conservative opposition in your state.

There is no such viable conservative opposition in MA -- not in the last 45 years of the post-JFK assasination era. MA just got rid of its last Kennedy-in-office vestige when Scott Brown was elected. Understand that. We are truly all operating behind enemy lines up here. With the exception of a few years here and there, I am a native New Englander. To understand what one is able to do in a place like this politically is to live in a place like this.

Romney did about as well as anyone with an (R) next to his name could expect to do in this region. "Romneycare" - a title stuck to him like "Star Wars" was stuck mockingly to Reagan by Kennedy -- that Romney signed was not the terms that were negotiated. But with 90% (D) entrenched in the legislature set to over ride a veto and knowing there was still more to oppose (e.g., Partial birth abortion) you have to pick battles to survive here politically.

I disagree with states mandating the forced purchase of health insurance. I also disagree with State income taxes. Wealth and jobs have flowed away from high tax high mandate states to states that have neither (e.g., Florida and Texas). That said, both rights reside within the purvew of states rights to do so, and this is Federalism.

State legislatures are laboratories. Each state tries programs to learn what works best for them and what doesn't. I suspect that if health insurance is able to be negotiated comepetitively across state lines, those states setting up exchanges and mandating health insurance will eventually dismantle their expensive programs as the populace rises up to call for their elimination.

As far as I am concerned I am hiring a politician to do what I want him to do. That's it. I don't have to like them. I think too many conservatives are trying to make friends of politicians the way parents are too often busy make trying to make their kids their "friends." Result is too often that the kids don't respect the parents and the politicians don't respect the constituents.

I actually think Romney has plenty of good conservative principles even as many Mormons I have met do. I suspect you had sterling ethical principles as Mormon as you have today. My point is you can't tell me that a guy whose religion believes America has something to do with the lost tribes of Israel is going to do something that doesn't affirm American world supremacy. I don't have to agree with the man's religion but if that's what incentivizes him to make sure America's world supremacy is affirmed both economically and militarily, and beacon of freedom, I can support the politician because he is doing what I want.

How many "conservatives" have said they'd do things conservatively and they turn around and disappoint us? Like the parable in Scripture where the guy says he'll plow the field and doesn't vs. the guy who said he wouldn't and has a change of heart and does it. Which one did the Master's bidding?

Similarly, which ever one calling himself conservative and espousing conservatism actually does stuff to move the conservative ball down the field to get into scoring position is the conservative I will support -- regardless of whether he's a Mormon.

I hope that to a significant degrees I can trust (that is not without"Trust but Verify") them to keep their word to me. But that typically takes a constant effort from the grass roots, and the those grass roots have often booted that kind of thing up to politicians to take care of almost exclusively -- and they have been disappointed too many times in the past.

The grass roots must always practice "eternal vigilance" to keep the politicians on the straight and narrow. Unlike any other time in the ast 45 years today I see conservatives motivated to do just that from the grass roots all the way up to the Presidency.

In politics there are trade-offs. The key is to get more of what conservatives want and less of what liberals want. In spite of Bush 1&2 flaws, you must admit that we can thank them both for the evidences of USSC conservatism that still prevail.

MR's smart, and he structured his ground game for this primary long in advance of any of his competitors. He learned from mistakes from prior campaigns even as Reagan did in 1968 and 1976. It's why he is where he is today, and his competitors are not.

On another thread I have presented a possible cabinet selection for Romney, which if he chose to run with it could persuade the likes of Tea Party Patriots to become more enthusiastic campaigners in 2012 than will be the (D) counterparts.

How's this for a novel idea: Run with your proposed cabinet

If you hope to have any of your agenda see the light of day, you have to win first.

I was a Perry guy. He didn't win. I can move on. If, as I have proposed it, I can have the essence of everybody who ran, and create an amalgam of what was useful to the cause of conservatism from everyone of them, I'll have what I want, and I suspect you would too.

By keeping our eyes on the prize, and always remembering that our power is derived from the bottom up, not from the top down, from a unified front, not from a fractured, self-sniping back lot, our larger mass will be in a unique position to dictate our will to the higher ups. That is the way constitutional republicanism works.

Maybe if we can all stop fighting amongst ourselves, and pining for candidates that showed themselves to be singularly incapable of carrying the message long enough to coalesce into that force, we will win the day and take conservatism forward.

If the "cabinet-in-waiting," as I have proposed it, is unleashed into the fray, the debate will continue, and our opposition will wither in the face of it. We use our politicians for what they are good for. Imperfect vessels they may be, but what ever advances conservatism should be our goal.

Pessimism in conservative ranks is merely evidence of DNC success, and I see enough of it around here lately. Let’s cultivate THEIR pessimism, and if they ever thought it was Romney that they wanted to run against, I wouldn’t be surprised if we all someday find out that he actually turned out to be the Trojan Horse within THEIR own midst the whole time as Governor of MA.

FReegards!


32 posted on 05/13/2012 3:57:02 PM PDT by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Mitt Romney, his father and his mother, all were liberals....

Romney is a tool like any other politician is a tool. He's one of many tools we have to get conservatism to the place where our language is leading the debate, not just left to a few self-satisfied bomb throwers relegated to the back benches somewhere.

I'm hearing Romney responding to the conservative movement, going out of his way to affirm pro-life language in ways I never heard Reagan do with such frequency. I hear the clear articulation of conservatism on many topics – not “perfect” in every possible way, but when is it ever? For the most part sounds good, sounds conservative. Pro-gun, anti-debt, anti-tax, strong defense, strong economy, strong job creation, less regulation, etc. Everything straight out of the Ronald Reagan speech-book -- and then some.

Folksy sounding brain farts in debates a la Perry is not what will win Presidential elections. Clear articulation of conservatism is. You gotta look and sound the part. Gingrich is great in the articulation area – though a bit frumpy in the visuals, and he should be hired to do something significant that requires great locution – like dismantling the Dept. of Education. On the other hand he bounces checks. He’s not the model for business savvy that gets the US off the debt track. Mitt Romney by contrast is. Newt’s not exactly the moral paragon where marital faithfulness is concerned (where Mitt by contrast is) but some people think that key core conservative value can be overlooked. Marital fidelity is essential for a moral leader, but that said I am not looking to hire Newt for a national marriage counselor either. He’s a politician -- good for what he’s good for – put him over at Dep’t of Ed. Let him play to his strength.

Bush 1 and 2 let us down on a lot of things too, you may recall. Margaret Sanger was a family friend of Prescott Bush -- GHWBs father. GHWB and his family were all liberal (R)'s pre-1980. LauraGWB we later found out that for all her children’s ed. stuff, she is not quite so pro-life as we thought she was. Neither are GWB’s daughters who are also more pro-gay post 2008 – at least as bad as Megan McCain. As wonderfully grandmotherly as she is, I don’t think Barbara Bush ever really gave up the Planned Parenthood line but was smart enough to shut up about it. When it came to Desert Storm (Bush 1) or the War on Terror (Bush 2), however, I wouldn’t have wanted anyone else in there leading the charge.

When GWB was ready to take on Social Security in 2005 he was abandoned by his own congressional team in the breach, he stood alone. Weakness: too much a patrician in his own right to stick up for himself. Still would have rather had Bush 1&2 over Gore of Kerry – wouldn’t you? Thomas, Roberts and Alito – need any more reasons – in spite of all the GHWB and GWB imperfections? Actually better than any of Reagan’s appointees with the exception of Scalia.

If MR had only 1/2 the people I proposed for cabinet and higher offices (see below), would you prefer to have MR picking USSC justice replacements, or Obama?

How's this for a novel idea: Run with your proposed cabinet

Nixon wanted George to run for that Senate seat to get him out of his administration.

Get a grip. If a President no longer wants someone in his cabinet he has the power to ask for their resignation. Learn the process.

FReegards!


33 posted on 05/13/2012 4:15:49 PM PDT by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

From the article

“At the height of tensions over polygamy, when Congress effectively outlawed it in the 1800s, Mormons went to the Supreme Court to argue that the practice was protected under the First Amendment. If polygamy were forbidden, they said, the nation would be abandoning God and his desire for religious freedom.”
_____________________________________________

Now that’s right interesting...

Romney’s family went to the Supreme court to argue for their anti-one man, one woman marriages...

and yet Willie Mitty claims he believes in the “faith of my fathers”...

and the god of his fathers demanded perverted sexual relationships..

Squeaky clean: Mormon style..


34 posted on 05/13/2012 4:22:10 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Massachusetts is a lot like Vichy France: would you have criticized a mayor of a town in the Vichy, who, while he outwardly appeared to support the Nazis actually did what he could do to oppose the totalitarian regime as best he could?
________________________________________

Wee Willie Mitty may be afraid of yucky mean ol guns but nobody was holding one to his head...

His life was never in danger...

Try again...


35 posted on 05/13/2012 4:30:24 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Reagan hating- ” Look, I was an independent
during the time of Reagan / Bush.
I’m not trying to return to Reagan/ Bush. ”

You really got it bad for the guy, Romney is a set back for conservatism, his becoming head of the party is a victory for at least a half century of effort by his family to fight conservatism.

Romney was anti-Reagan, his family was anti-Reagan, as late as the 1990s Romney was devoting all donations, and fund raising to democrats and Planned Parenthood, he was a failure as a one term Governor that had to give up his plan to run for reelection.

He is a whack case, here he is on guns: “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Nixon wanted to usher out George Romney with as little stink as possible.

Wikipedia: “Indeed Nixon, who never had good relations with Romney either personally or on policy grounds, had by then decided he wanted Romney out of his administration but did not want to fire him, and hatched a plot to get Romney to run in the Senate race.[44][45] However, Lenore Romney’s name ended up being mentioned more by Republicans and within the family, even though she professed not to want to run unless no other candidate could be found”


36 posted on 05/13/2012 4:39:14 PM PDT by ansel12 ( A Mormon Bishop is defending our bible defined "one man, one woman" marriage argument)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
Romney might actually be a stealth candidate from the right and you are worried about him not announcing that -- just doing what could be done as he could do it well-behind enemy lines. It's a lot easier to be a vocal outstanding conservative politician in Georgia than in Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a lot like Vichy France: would you have criticized a mayor of a town in the Vichy, who, while he outwardly appeared to support the Nazis actually did what he could do to oppose the totalitarian regime as best he could?

Romney was the FOURTH Republican governor in a row, Romney left with 34% approval and was a disaster.

37 posted on 05/13/2012 4:43:12 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

Oops on the math. Should be:

“300,000,000 people in the country and the two Washington parties come up with the weirdest fringe freaks in our history, and at the same time.”


38 posted on 05/13/2012 4:55:59 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (Obama's record is an open charnel pit. Romney's too, but under a whitened sepulchre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
Thank you for your opinion, such as it is, from Tennessee, Nana.

As I wrote to another fellow, I don't expect you to understand the political climate of Massachusetts.

Romney wasn't my first choice either. Better that you get on board with what it's going take to defeat Obama this November.

Postings like yours lack for perspective.

Develop some.

FReegards!


39 posted on 05/13/2012 4:55:59 PM PDT by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Romney was the FOURTH Republican governor in a row, Romney left with 34% approval and was a disaster.

And the Massachusetts legislature was 90% (D) for all those (R) Governor's administrations too.

OK so what else is it that you fail to understand about trying to govern as a (R) in a State with over 90%(D) legislature?

FReegards!


40 posted on 05/13/2012 5:18:08 PM PDT by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

Kid theres nothoing wrong with my perspective

but theres a lot wrong with the liberal Willard Mitt Romney...

and theres nothing there that represents me as a Conservative...

If I voted for the cowardly bully Willard Mitt Romney I would be saying that I agreed with his
pro-abortion,
pro-same sex marriage,
anti-military,
anti-2nd Amendment
pro-global warming
pro-big government
pro-AMNESTY Bill
stances on the issues...

If as you allege, Willard Mitt Romney is so weak in character that he goes along so easily with ideas that are detrimental to decency and good government, then he is not fit to lead this country...

We need a man or woman who has a back bone and who will not roll over just to appease...

If the (What did you call it ?)oh yes

“the political climate of Massachusetts”

could so easily influence Willard Mitt Romney to cause him to cower to the point of passing such wicked laws,

What do you think “the political climate of Washington” would do to him if he ever got near the White House ???


41 posted on 05/13/2012 5:22:00 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

I don’t fail to understand anything, including your attitude and your little high pitched anti-conservative Romney song that he is secretly, something he isn’t, secretly? how twisted and bizarre.

Fourth Republican Governor in a row, in a state that prefers Republican Governors, at least until they got a dose of the incompetent, unlikable Mitt Romney.

The Romney that was donating to democrats, fund raising for democrats and Planned Parenthood, and that did not try to run to the right of Ted Kennedy on some issues, but to the left, voting for Tsongas.

Romney did not have to support democrats in multiple states or have to be anti-Reagan, or have to refuse to switch back to republican until October, 1993.

Redstate speculates-For anyone who either believes in leprechauns or that Mitt Romney is a conservative this should be of significance, especially since his minions haunted this site making much of the fact that Rick Perry was a Democrat before 1989.

The speculation is that Romney had originally intended to challenge Ted Kennedy in the Democrat primary then decided to run as a Republican. This makes his 1994 campaign strategy much more understandable.

According to a Romney campaign spokesperson, Romney “switched back.” One doesn’t know how Romney managed to “switch back.” According to the town clerk, Romney became an Republican only on October 19, 1993. The implication is that Romney had either never voted between his registration as a independent in 1979 and 1992 (so his vote in 1992 automatically enrolled him as a Democrat) or that he was a regular Democrat voters in those earlier elections and changed to Republican to run for Senate.


42 posted on 05/13/2012 5:30:20 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Romney chose Massachusetts for the very reason that it was a good match for his own politics, it was the proper constituency to match him, his chosen voter base.

Romney chose, Massachusetts.


43 posted on 05/13/2012 5:39:11 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Romney chose, Massachusetts.
_________________________________

Yes I do know that he could have run for office in Utah at that time

but he couldnt get the Right to Life folks in Utah to endorse him..

I wonder why ???


44 posted on 05/13/2012 5:48:51 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

I guess Romney is too skilled at keeping his Reaganism ‘secret’, or maybe that Utah problem was fake and was really part of the 60 year deep cover Reaganite double agent act.


45 posted on 05/13/2012 6:00:21 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: Agamemnon

“I tell you you. For all your wrinkles, you still have no wisdom.”

Persuasive as ever.


47 posted on 05/13/2012 6:38:33 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (Obama's record is an open charnel pit. Romney's too, but under a whitened sepulchre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Instead of speculating, why don't you do some research of your own and just produce a (D) registration for Romney prior to 1993 and end all the rumor you started then? So far you have been little more than a hearsay peddler.

Yes, we all know that Rick Perry was a (D). Ronald Reagan was once a (D), Jeanne Kirpatrick was once a (D), and so weren't a host of others. They got over it. You have no evidence that Romney was ever a (D). All you have is gossip from un-named sources.

I'm quite sure that Obama loves all your speculation.

I don't have to like Romney. You don't have to like Romney. I don't like poilticians in general, but like anyone, I do expect them to do what I voted them in for. I work to elect politicians who have the best chance to promote conservatism. I vote for those most likely to make that happen.

You need to realize that Presidential level conservatism and any hope for conservative USSC appointments will not happen at all with Obama in office.

Yours is the kind of sniping Obama doesn't even have to pay a dime for.

He laughs at you.

Why don't you just quit all the sniping and see what you can do to actually make the (R) nominee win this November.

FReegards!


48 posted on 05/13/2012 7:11:40 PM PDT by Agamemnon (Darwinism is the glue that holds liberalism together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Good points in your post # 6. Thanks.


49 posted on 05/13/2012 7:51:06 PM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon

I noticed you never posted during the 2007/2008 election cycle, we covered all this years ago, especially the Reagan bashing part of the Romney devotees comedy routine.


50 posted on 05/13/2012 8:19:32 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson