The Romney-Mormon Conversation Continues


This from today’s New York Times online:

Hopefully you won’t have to register in order to read the article. If anyone can’t access it, I can post the essence of the story by hand.


I don’t trust Romney. He speaks with a forked tongue.


I haven’t heard him speak yet, only seen photographs and moving pictures on TV. It’s going to be interesting to see how he handles the debates, and the tough questions from the press. There’ve been a few articles now that focus at least in part on his Mormon religion. That surely is going to be a big part of the attention on him, and unless he handles that well, he’s going to have a tough time getting past it.


I don’t think the Mormon thing will be big in the end. The media and polticos have to be careful here.

I can’t speak for the rest of the nation but in the South there is sort of an unoffical social contract on this. When you have so many different Churches society operates by leaving ones personals “Christian” beliefs out of politcs. I think it is considered rude. This could backfire big time down here if people use it against Romney


It could swing either way, depending on how gracefully he deals with the questions. The big problem is within the Repub Party, which desperately needs to hold the coalition with the evangelical rightwing together to have any hope for victory at the presidential level. Those evangelicals will pose the biggest problem for a Mormon candidate. Most evangelicals, and conservative Catholics, consider Mormonism to be bad, and would naturally distrust a Mormon candidate. Romney needs to figure out a way to gracefully handle the questions so that these Christians are put at ease on the Mormon issue.


he flip flops to much


It isn’t because he is mormon that I have a problem but more bevcause he flip flops way to much on issues. He says one thing and does another. Of course now he is trying to clean that image up.


Senator Brownback would be a better one to hold to the issues if one wants to be conservative and keep the Christian side.


Romney is very dishonest. The fact that he’s a Mormon doesn’t bother me, it’s the fact that the “conservative” positions he is advocating now are completely different from what he believed just a couple of years ago. His positions on the issues seem to come from purely political calculations, not from his own beliefs.


Romney flip flops more often than the Mormon church does when faced with pressure. Romney has long been a pro-abort, which isn’t something the Mormon church says is a no-no BTW, and now that it favors him to be more conservative he’s dropped it. No reason to believe his positions won’t continue to change to suit whatever Romney deems more popular.


You do have to remember that Romney ran in Massachusetts. A state, like my own IL, where outside of small conservative pockets, a pro-life candidate will get creamed at the polls. It’s all very well to say, well one should stick to one’s conscience, but if you want to be a SUCCESSFUL politician (instead of a LOSING politician) pragmatism must always be practiced.

When Alan Keyes ran in IL (note he has never won a serious race) he lost over-whelmingly because he viewed it as an opportunity to preach to Illinoisans about what they should believe politically rather than an opportunity to accept what Illinoisians believe and try to fashion a platform.

There’s a big difference between taking an unpopular stance and being a leader and taking an unpopular stance and being a loser. The difference is how many people you can get behind you.


Okay, so if I were a German politican in the 30’s it would have been good to join the NSDAP because it was popular and opposition parties were getting “creamed” at the polls? Again, my problem with Romney is that the Mormon church “has no revelation on aborition” which means Romney is quite fine to be as pro-abortion or as pro-life as the situation dictates. Abortion is an absolute issue for me, if a politican supports abortion I consider them to be no different than a KZ camp guard and most certainly will not vote for them.
To an extent you are right, it’s an evil of this so called democractic system we have. It’s why I do not now, nor have I ever, supported the notion of democractic or republican forms of government. Give me a monarch.

There’s a big difference between taking an unpopular stance and being a leader and taking an unpopular stance and being a loser. The difference is how many people you can get behind you.

Or to say it’s the reason why pyschopaths like Adolf Hitler have been extremely successful in eletorial politics. When you can appease the darkest desires of people you can get many of them to support you privately in a voting booth and when they realize it’s popular enough you can get that same public support. Hitler did it by taking an irrational hatred of Jews and making it into a political system. Lenin did it by manuiplating a poor economic enviornment with absurd and impractical promises. Modern politicans do it by riding the fear of every man that might get a mistress pregnant or that doesn’t want to make a child support payment and forming it into a feminst “choice” issue. I hate democracy.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit