Official Romney for President Exploratory Committee Thread

[YOhio]

we WERE going to win! Until that dirty hit took out our quarterback! I honestly don't know how you BYU fans sleep at night.

As far as the Republican nom goes, I think Rick Perry may come on awfully strong. I'm just not sure the party's willing to trust any more governors from Texas.

We'll see how he does. He'll get a ton of buzz because he's a new face to the party, but he doesn't have a nationwide campaign infrastructure just yet.

[Uncle Ted]

Romney will have a hard time winning because 18% of republicans/independents hate mormons. Of course it is too bad Obama is not a mormon given 27% of democrats are religious bigots. Given Harry Reid I can understand why they hate mormons as much as they do.

About one in five Republicans, or 18%, said they would not vote for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the official name of the Mormon church. About the same proportion of independents said they would oppose a Mormon while a larger number of Democrats, about 27%, said they were opposed, according to the poll.

Maybe the GOP should play it safe and just go with the Libertarian from Texas.

[Green Monstah]

I don't really buy this simplification of things - I've been pretty critical of Romney on a lot of fronts and he's struck some egregiously cynical political poses - but why do we pretend people can't change their minds?

Shouldn't new data and persuasive arguments result in people changing their minds?

Reagan changed his about a bunch of things. I've changed my mind on plenty of issues over the years, ranging from drug legalization to the death penalty - why is it so terrible when public figures change their minds?

Again, I understand that some of Romney's moves have been transparent - but some of them also have sensible narratives around them.

Anyway.... Reid is FOS.

People certainly change their minds. But, does a middle-aged man usually change his mind drastically on hot-button political issues in a relatively short amount of time? 2001 Romney and 2007 Romney are practically different people.

While it's possible that he could have change his mind, it's far more likely that he simply knew which direction the policital winds were blowing.

[Maximus]

People certainly change their minds. But, does a middle-aged man usually change his mind drastically on hot-button political issues in a relatively short amount of time? 2001 Romney and 2007 Romney are practically different people.

While it's possible that he could have change his mind, it's far more likely that he simply knew which direction the policital winds were blowing.

Yes, all politicians do it though. His actions as governor are more important to me as well. Abortion isnt really an issue now anyways. It will never become illegal as republicans want it. Same with same sex marriage--it will be legal in 20 years.

[Green Monstah]

I'll take Obama for the win, as the Republican Party has apparently made no progress in trying to resolve its various identity crises.

Probably right. Obama's not a bad person, but I'm not sold on his ability to lead.

[byu71]

I love it when people say this. He hasn't done what most other politicians do. He really only has 2 or 3 things he has changed definitively on anyways.

It depends on if the media decides to label you a flip flopper and then it sticks.

Look at most of the mainstream media in regards to President. They could easily go back through his record and find numerous flip-flops. Right now he is evolving on "gay marriage". He was once for it, evolved to be against it and is now evolving back. Then there is his love for his Pastor, or ex Pastor.

Anybody who has done anything of significance in politics has flip flopped.

How about the "greatest" politician of our era as so named by the media, Bill Clinton. Seriously, anyone think he wasn't a flip flopper.

George Bush may have been one of the lowest in the flip flop category. I don't think he grades out as high by the media as Clinton.

[Green Monstah]

Yes, all politicians do it though. His actions as governor are more important to me as well. Abortion isnt really an issue now anyways. It will never become illegal as republicans want it. Same with same sex marriage--it will be legal in 20 years.

Maybe I hold Romney to a higher standard. Maybe I shouldn't.

[myboynoah]

Praise from an unlikely source.

Dionne: Why Romney is crowing about ‘Whitey’

The Globe article:

Romney pushed to oust Bulger over brother

[LA Ute]

Interesting observation from good old Ken Jennings:

Running as problem-solving technocrats instead of ideologues doesn't make Romney and Huntsman outliers among their fellow Mormons. It might be the most characteristically Mormon thing about them.

It's an interesting point and makes some sense.

[Majo]

I'm sure we'll see more of this as campaigning revs up:

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/tricia-erickson-an-indoctrinated-mormon-should-never-be-elected-as-president/

Bushman has a very classy and well articulated response, IMO. The points Erickson makes about seemingly silly mormon beliefs disqualifying Romney for leadership are straw men. Nearly every past president has belonged to a religion with beliefs that seem ridiculous to non believers as Bushman points out in his response at the end of her essay. The fact that supernatural beliefs of a larger religion are more widely held than the supernatural beliefs of a smaller religion doesn't make them any less supernatural.

Tricia Erickson lets her evangelical zeal against mormonism distract from the only legitimate question she raises: as president, will Mr. Romney consistently act in the best interest of the people, or might he be unduly influenced by the mormon church if the two interests were ever to conflict?

Questions of Romney's allegiance aren't without precedence. JFK faced the same question with respect to the catholic church, only he never took an oath of allegiance under penalty of death that I'm aware of. Many past presidents from George Washington to Gerald Ford, however, did make such oaths as masons (which have an interesting relation to mormon temple covenants).

I know Romney addressed this during the last go around, but I would love to hear him answer a pointed question: "Mr. Romney, as a temple going mormon you have sworn an oath (under penalty of death at one point in your life) that you would consecrate everything to the mormon church. How literally do you take that oath? Would you consecrate your presidential power and influence to the church if requested?" Without a clear answer to that question, I can certainly understand how some non mormons might be nervous about voting for Mitt Romney.

Temple covenants notwithstanding, I doubt Mitt Romney wouldn't have any problem carrying out his presidency independent of the church. The temple covenant presents an allegiance problem in theory, but, in practice, I would be very surprised if the church ever attempted to collect on the consecration oath and influence him politically. The church is too concerned about it's public image and wouldn't risk the public backlash. And, if the church did try to influence him, I would be surprised if he acquiesced.

His father provided a sort of precedence when he supported civil rights as governor of Michigan. The mormon church as a whole did not support civil rights at the time. McKay was careful not to influence Romney's stance on civil rights despite disagreeing with him personally (David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism). Romney did, however, receive a letter from apostle Stapley reminding him, "as a friend", what the church's "position" was and urging him to reconsider his political views. (http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf)
To his credit George Romney was undeterred from his support of civil rights. I suspect Mitt Romney would be similarly independent.

EDIT: I misspoke above. As PaloAlto pointed out, the old penalties didn't actually apply to the oath of consecration.

[Maximus]

I'm sure we'll see more of this as campaigning revs up:

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/tricia-erickson-an-indoctrinated-mormon-should-never-be-elected-as-president/

Bushman has a very classy and well articulated response, IMO. The points Erickson makes about seemingly silly mormon beliefs disqualifying Romney for leadership are straw men. Nearly every past president has belonged to a religion with beliefs that seem ridiculous to non believers as Bushman points out in his response at the end of her essay. The fact that supernatural beliefs of a larger religion are more widely held than the supernatural beliefs of a smaller religion doesn't make them any less supernatural.

Tricia Erickson lets her evangelical zeal against mormonism distract from the only legitimate question she raises: as president, will Mr. Romney consistently act in the best interest of the people, or might he be unduly influenced by the mormon church if the two interests were ever to conflict?

Questions of Romney's allegiance aren't without precedence. JFK faced the same question with respect to the catholic church, only he never took an oath of allegiance under penalty of death that I'm aware of. Many past presidents from George Washington to Gerald Ford, however, did make such oaths as masons (which have an interesting relation to mormon temple covenants).

I know Romney addressed this during the last go around, but I would love to hear him answer a pointed question: "Mr. Romney, as a temple going mormon you have sworn an oath (under penalty of death at one point in your life) that you would consecrate everything to the mormon church. How literally do you take that oath? Would you consecrate your presidential power and influence to the church if requested?" Without a clear answer to that question, I can certainly understand how some non mormons might be nervous about voting for Mitt Romney.

Temple covenants notwithstanding, I doubt Mitt Romney wouldn't have any problem carrying out his presidency independent of the church. The temple covenant presents an allegiance problem in theory, but, in practice, I would be very surprised if the church ever attempted to collect on the consecration oath and influence him politically. The church is too concerned about it's public image and wouldn't risk the public backlash. And, if the church did try to influence him, I would be surprised if he acquiesced.

His father provided a sort of precedence when he supported civil rights as governor of Michigan. The mormon church as a whole did not support civil rights at the time. McKay was careful not to influence Romney's stance on civil rights despite disagreeing with him personally (David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism). Romney did, however, receive a letter from apostle Stapley reminding him, "as a friend", what the church's "position" was and urging him to reconsider his political views. (http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf)
To his credit George Romney was undeterred from his support of civil rights. I suspect Mitt Romney would be similarly independent.

He shouldnt answer if asked and shouldnt be asked anyways. Such a question reeks of bigotry and ignorance. Unless of course the same question was asked to everyone about every questionable passage in the Bible and so forth. He isnt running for the pastor of the nation, and that should be his only response. He, in no way, needs to defend or explain the temple.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I'm sure we'll see more of this as campaigning revs up:

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/tricia-erickson-an-indoctrinated-mormon-should-never-be-elected-as-president/

Bushman has a very classy and well articulated response,... IMO.

As always, Bushman takes the high road, despite Ms. Erickson being vicious and wrong. The penalties of which she speaks (which no longer are used, in any case) never applied to the Law of Consecration or the other laws which one agrees to obey. I'm unsure if she is just stupid or intentionally wrong for self-serving purposes ("I didn't want to write this book; I had to write it." Sure.).

[myboynoah]

LOL

I was also the first Crisis Management/Damage Control specialist in the US as announced by Barbara Walters on 20/20. And through the years, I have opined on many TV and radio shows and various media venues throughout the US.

[LA Ute]

As always, Bushman takes the high road, despite Ms. Erickson being vicious and wrong. The penalties of which she speaks (which no longer are used, in any case) never applied to the Law of Consecration or the other laws which one agrees to obey. I'm unsure if she is just stupid or intentionally wrong for self-serving purposes ("I didn't want to write this book; I had to write it." Sure.).

Hey, she is the daughter of a Mormon bishop. Have a little respect.

[Majo]

He shouldnt answer if asked and shouldnt be asked anyways. Such a question reeks of bigotry and ignorance. Unless of course the same question was asked to everyone about every questionable passage in the Bible and so forth. He isnt running for the pastor of the nation, and that should be his only response. He, in no way, needs to defend or explain the temple.

I'm not asking him to defend or explain beliefs. I agree with you to a certain extent there. Every religion has beliefs that seem silly to nonbelievers. I don't think asking him to explain his allegiances is unreasonable, though.

If he takes an oath to consecrate everything to the mormon church, a question as to whether or not his presidential power and influence would be included under "everything" is totally fair game IMO. As I said, practically speaking I can't imagine a significant problem arising. But I feel I know the mormon church pretty well and I'm comfortable with their good intentions. I could see people less familiar with the mormon church being legitimately nervous about that oath, though. If Mitt belonged to some relatively tight nit and centrally controlled religion with which I have less familiarity/confidence and had made an oath like that, I would need an answer to that sort of question before I could vote for him.

And in no way would that be ignorance or bigotry IMO, unless we're going by the Michael Jackson definition of those words (ie. people who disagree with you or question you are ignorant/bigots--there's a funny southpark episode about that). Ignorance, by standard definition, would be to never vet the candidate and leave the potential conflict of interest uncovered. Or perhaps, without doing your homework, accuse him of something false like making an oath to a white salamander. And a bigot wouldn't vote for the candidate outright based on pre-conceived prejudice; he wouldn't need to ask a question about potential outside influences on the president because the answer wouldn't make any difference.

So, I maintain that I think it's fair game to ask if his potential presidential power/influence is at risk of being consecrated to the mormon church. And I think that asking that question in good faith would demonstrate an absence of ignorance or bigotry on the part of the asker. To be clear, I don't think the author of that article was asking anything in good faith. She obviously has a beef with mormons. I have some very nice non mormon co-workers who are asking that question, though, and who are in no way ignorant or bigots IMO.