Romney Announces

"record as Massachusetts Governor"

Romney CAN'T talk about his record. He was a Gov. of a Blue state that enacted Left-leaning laws. If the Republican base learned that he claimed "a greater champion of gay rights than Ted Kennedy" or his support for same-sex couples to adopt children or any of his other stances he would never win the primary.

Wow: now you are getting snarky!!!

Romney definitely has some flaws, especially when isolated and scrutinized, BUT when placed alongside all other candidates, he is the best and the most qualified. His weaknesses pale in comparison to those of others’. In other words, by the rule of minimal risk, Romney is the real deal and one right for the job of President of the United States!

ken:

Based on Romney's past accomplishments, he's probably the best candidate on the Republican side right now. He'd make a great Presidental candidate with broad appeal. And, because of that, he'll never make it out of the primary.

"The biggest questions are whether his Mormon faith is a deal-breaker with evangelicals, and more broadly, whether the party's socially conservative base will believe that his relatively recent moves to the right on social issues are sincere."

I have actually heard some so-called Evangelical Christians claim that MORMONS are NOT Christians.
So, I think it will be an uphill battle to educate some of these yahoos.

Were I a GOPer, I would have a hard time being convinced that ROMNEY has suddenly "seen the light" regarding the social issues.

With all that said, however, RUDY has high approval numbers despite his stance on social issues and his own jaded personal life.

Regarding BROWNBACK'S ATTACK--"Mitt Romney’s flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush."

Now, if BROWNBACK had been thinking rationally before assailing ROMNEY, he could have easily killed two birds with one stone by inserting John McCAIN where he put John KERRY.

Poor old McCAIN has flipped and flopped so much until I don't think there is much left about which he could change his mind

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism
....................................
McCain has an ambiguous record on whether he supports intelligent design in the science curriculum. In 2005, he said it should be taught.
.....................................
But last year, he said the intelligent design theory should not be taught in the science classroom.
.....................................

Interesting that the GOPers are already willing to start shooting each other. The silly season is upon us again--much, much too soon.

Dang! I just read that we are gonna hafta change our primary date in February 2008 'cause it would be on Mardi Gras day. Can't mess with Mardi Gras down here! :)

"Our theater critics could probably do a better job"

Zing!

(But now that I think about it, if you really did have theater critics reviewing these campaign events, I might actually consider subscribing to Time.)

What could be more fun than watching Guliani and Romney try to out-extreme each other on the crazy scale in a cage match refereed by McCain? Maybe the Time sports writers can get in on this too!

As far as Romney's faith, Joseph Smith found the golden tablets of Moroni in upstate New York, so the home field advantage goes to the baby immigrant Jesus.

"these events tend to be long on symbolism and showmanship, and virtually empty of substance or political import."

Who was it that said that show business is in everything? Can't remember...

Nice post, Karen.

Good post. But Romney's refusal to deal with Iraq substantively is also a major problem.

Interesting that Romney chose to announce at a museum honoring a well known anti-semite, a man who received one of the highest honors possible in Nazi Germany, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle.

His newspaper published the notorious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

Did anyone ask Romney about his feelings on Henry Ford, the antisemite?

Of course, no one has ever seemed concerned about Prescott Bush's ties to the Nazi's.

And what does Bill Donohue and the Catholic League think? Should Romney wear suits or dresses (Giuliani and Hillary)? Is Romney white enough? What is his view of Warren Jeffs-FLDS and other polygomist groups? The GOP is currently divided on issues involving immigration. Which side of the divide is he on?

Romney would make an excellent President. I would love to have a Mormon, Republican man in the White House. Wouldn't that give those liberal news channels major stress! Go Mitt!

By the way, in my opinion, his religion will end up helping him, not hurting him.

A comparison of Obama and Romney's announcement is instructive. Now one complained about Obama's symbolism, which was beyond the pale. Obama is not Lincoln. On the other hand, Romney's symbolism worked great--his real family history in Michigan (standing in front of a Nash Rambler, the brain-child of his father), his walk-the-talk commitment to family values as demonstrated by the presence of the wife-of-his-youth, his 20 grandkids, his children and siblings, and all the reminders that innovation and transformation aren't just words to this guy.

Pundits and bloggers muse about bigotry in Christians who live in distant red states running shine in the evening, but in the end, voters go with what they think is real, and Romney is shockingly real for a politician.

I find it amusing to see the Mormon angle rehashed endlessly. If Evangelicals are such unreconstructed bigots, how much of a chance does Catholic Giuliani have? McCain's problems with Evangelicals dwarf that of all other candidates.

I think any pundit that brings this up without actual proof that its real should be stamped on the forehead with the word "unimaginative".

MS: Evangelical and Catholics = Right to Life

Actually, Romney's political accomplishments as Governor of MASS are quite remarkable. Consider that in a state as liberal as MASS, a Republican Governor turned around a devastating state economy and introduced universal health care (not HillaryCare) without raising taxes, or creating bigger government.

Of course, his accomplishments in the private sector and with the Salt Lake Olympics are well known, and all add up to a very qualified candidate.

He's conservative, so it doesn't take a genius to figure out where he falls on the issues, but to his credit, and unlike all the other candidates, he does spell out step by step how he'd address the major issues that face Americans.

(I looked it up at his website...out of curiosity more than anything.)

What Romney has going for him is that he's a proven leader, with a proven track record of fixing broken things.

The Mormon Church is pro-life. How can you trust a Mormon who goes against his faith to be pro-choice and then reverses himself on the issue. This is the ultimate flip flop.

The only way Mitt's faith will become an issue is if left leaning media mogals like the Times are having a slow news day and make it one.

"the Mormon angle... actual proof..."

Google: mormon christian
Scan through the top hits.

Let's just say evangelical Christians VERY strongly disagree with the LDS.

More importantly, the Mormons are one of the fastest growing churches in the world, making them a direct market competitor with the evangelical missionaries.

And that's where things get really ugly. (Or entertaining, depending on where you sit.)

Ama, Mormons are 'not' Christians, despite what you may have heard them say. The Trinity, for example, is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, but Mormons do not believe in it. Read up on the Book of Mormon and you will see some really...interesting stuff. BTW, I am not a Fundamentalist or an Evangelical...just an informed Christian. But would I vote for one, why not!

Gee, guys all this 'stuff' about the LDS. I watched the blonde Catholic theologian that CNN calls their 'religious correspondent', Delia give a Cliff notes discussion of LDS on American Morning this AM and she didn't mention that 'stuff'.

Ama:

Megaditto's to Peter for his incite on Mormonism. Furthermore, from an Evangelical's perspective, Mormons are not Christians in the same way that the United Church of Christ (Obama's denomination) is not Christian. It is a new Religeon that is not like the old demoninations it was formed from. For example, the UCC believes that there are many ways to get to heaven other than through a belief that Christ, alone, can atone for one's sins. The UCC is no more Christian than the LDS. And that's OK because this is America.

As an Evangelical who thanks God that he lives in the most pluralistic society in the world I will vote for the person who supports my pro-life and pro-family values. I would not care if he/she where LDS or UCC.

I'm so tired of hearing how Romney 'turned around' the Salt Lake Olympics. Nothing could be further from the truth. The structure was already up and running. All he had to do was be a smiling face and shake some hands. He did nothing else. The two poor saps that were scapegoated for an entire organization practicing illegal behavior worked their butts off to set the whole thing up. Romney was nothing more than a prop.

And as far as his faith goes - it's a HUGE factor. Most people know very little about the Mormon faith. Once they investigate it and discover how different it is from their own, they'll start to have doubts. Sorry, but that's just what always happens when people have to consider someone with unique religious beliefs. There's also the sticky point of the famous Mormon revelation that when a Mormon becomes President of the US, the world will change, people will convert in waves and the second coming of Christ will be imminent. It'll be interesting to see what happens when that little tidbit is let out of the bag.

Peter:

Who defines "Christian?" A Christian would be someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and his perfect example in every day life; in practice. Are you saying that Mormons are not Christian in this regard? Or are you saying that because they do not interpret the Bible in the exact fashion as you, that they cannot lay claim to Christ's atonement. Would you limit Christ's reach in this regard?

I am Mormon and as the true name of our Church demonstrates (The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints), I am a Christian. That is, I believe in Christ and believe that it is only through Him that I can attain a forgiveness of my sins and have peace in this life and in the life to come. Now, what you believe about Christ may be different. We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three separate individuals. You have the right to believe otherwise. I believe in that right to worship without being discriminated against.

The Book of Mormong is "intersting." But not in a negative way. It embraces all the doctrines of the Bible. Mormons embrace the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Check out www.lds.org for an informed look at the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is "interesting" but the doctrines are

Mr. Bartell,
Latter-Day Saints are, in fact, Christians. The doctrine of the Trinity may be a fundamental tenet but it is a flawed tenet and was not part of original Christian belief. It wasn't until the Nicean creed was put to debate, voted upon, and adopted that the doctrine of the Trinity was put into practice. An "informed" Christian would know this.

The Bible itself does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity and the Book of Mormon only confirms and clarifies the teachings of the Bible.

The LDS declaration to the world is that they follow Jesus Christ. They are not a reformation of any kind but are a restoration of Christ's Church and of Christian truth.

Mr. Romney will make an excellent President of this country, not because he is LDS, but because he, like President Bush, will lead by conscious, not partisan agendas.

Utahn,
Please fill us in on where exactly this revelation on an LDS President changing the world is. As an avid student of LDS doctrine and one who studies and refutes opposing views regularly, I have not heard of this.

Utahn,
I'm mormon and I'd really like to see some back up on the mormon-presidential-election-second-coming-of-christ revelation. That may be the most misinformed/ignorant comment I've ever heard made about my religion. And I've heard a lot.

Whether someone is Christian or not is not for any evangelical or anyone at all to decide except the individual. Many people think that the most un-Christian groups out there are the evangelicals with the way they treat others who are not like them. Mormons are defined as non-traditional Christians, and I think they are just fine with that, as they are known for treating all with respect. If Romney makes a serious run at the whitehouse, then we will see how truly accepting this country is. Religions should have nothing to do with wether a person is elected or not. Stick to the record, not to personal and sacred convictions.

Hey Chris, I applaud your belief in Jesus and your desire to follow the teachings of the Bible. As far as the definition of Christian, I am merely stating the core tenets that go back to Christ, the Founding Fathers of early Christianity, through the Reformation, and up to modern day. Many variations have existed through that time, most being formalized after the 16th century.

I can't deny that all of the Mormon faith I have met are sincere, God-fearing, and probably on a better salvific path than most. And they have my respect. May God guide us all in our path home!

The race for president is a blood sport, everything is an issue. No punches pulled in the race to be the most powerful man in the world. His flip flop record on social issue, Mormonism, and being from a liberal state will all be exploited and I don't think he has the political skill to win in a republican primary against others without such issues.

Karen - off topic re Pelosi:

Mission Accomplished!

Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom" chart codifies the false Pelosi story:

"(Arrow down) Sure Hastert had military jet, but seeking bigger one (to go nonstop) makes her sound like a 757 liberal."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17082209/site/newsweek/

There it is. "Conventional wisdom."

How many people will see just this item in Newsweek, without context, let alone the truth? Months from now people will be picking up this Newsweek issue (only when "Time" isn't available of course :wink: ) in waiting rooms across America, paging through for just these types of quick-read items.

Al Gore invented the Internets. "Air Pelosi" the "757 liberal." These chestnuts live forever. Karen, I'll bet you dinner at the restaurant of your choice that six months or a year from now Tee Vee talking heads and/or "expert" guest spinners will repeat the "Air Pelosi" myth as fact.

To be clear -- Newsweek published this days after the Sargent-at-Arms press release and *more than a week* after this had been debunked by Think Progress and others here on the Internets. What does it say when this humble commenter just reading the Internets knows a story is BS *before* the Blitzers and Dobbs even start "reporting" it?

But the real outrage is there will be no accountability for this *slander.* None. Nobody will be reprimanded. Nobody will be fired. Blitzer and Dobbs will continue to bloviate; Kurtz will continue to have a WashPost column, a CNN show and "esteemed" guest slots on Meet the Press.

And the gang of 500 will still shake their heads on "wonderment" that Pelosi didn't get the press release out soon enough! "Fault" will never go beyond that...

I agree with you Steve that the press has become way too powerful in determining the ideological thinking and decision making of the normal American in today's society. The news media only reports what they want you to see and tells it only in the way they want you to understand it so you will agree with them.

One must study from many sources to get the entire truth and then they must decipher it from the spins and views from that particular source.

I wish I knew a solution to this other than to do the homework. Then "study it out in your mind and ask God if it be true."

Mormons are not Christians. This religion has a distorted view of of the Bilble and Jesus. I would not vote for a Mormon, nor would I vote for a Muslim or any other non-Christian person to govern my country. Our country was founded by Christians - the separation of church and state in our constitution only means that the government cannot mandate by law a specific religion for its people to follow. The intent of the founding fathers was not to create a godless country where anything goes.

No matter how people want to deny it, your religious upbringing and participation DOES affect the way you make decisions, especially in a position of power such as the President of the United States. And if the candidate says their religion doesn't affect that - then they obviously don't "practice what they preach".

I'm an LDS democrat. In the primary election, I will likely vote for Obama. As our leaders encourage, I will vote by my personal dictates.

In regards to my religion, I realize that people like Zota and Peter will always try to misguidedly use bad information from well known antagonists of the church to try to dissuade public opinion.

If one wants to know the true components of our religion, go to the source. Here is a link to our Articles of Faith which have represented the church for over 160 years:

http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1

"White Horse Prophecy," the U.S. Constitution will be hanging by a thread and a church elder from Zion will ride in on a metaphorical white horse and save it.

Google the 'Mormon White Horse Prophesy.'

I'm sorry if this is news to you or hurts those who are believers. Personally, I would love to see a secular president who has the guts to say that they don't follow ANY religion. We've had enough problems created by far-right religious politicians.

I am fascinated how the Mormon discussion seems to become so tedious. Who cares? The more it is bickered about, the more inclined I am to feel sympathy for the man.

Mormons seem to be able to govern themselves, they seem to be able to get along peacefully among themselves (which it appears the rest of us cannot), and can look beyond their weaknesses or idiosyncrasies.

Mitt appears to have a plan and it will be interesting to see how it comes together. Perhaps this run will be nothing more than a good educational opportunity for the nation to learn about those scary Mormons that strike so much fear into us.

Joe,

Again, as a Utahn, I would have to disagree with what you say in your second paragraph.

REALLY look into how things operate in Utah; really look at how much of a bubble it is here; REALLY learn about the government in Utah and see if that's what you want for a federal government. I'm hunting like mad for a new job because of how backward and 'old boy' it is here. Can't wait to get out.

After living here as a non-Mormon, I would never vote for a Mormon.

HH,
The LDS Church is probably the most Constitutionally minded religions in the nation. The National Center for Constitutional Studies in Wachington DC was founded by the late Cleon Skousen, noted author and teacher of both religion, and US Government, who is LDS. The main focus of this center is to find out truly what the Founding Fathers wanted for American Citizens and what we can do to keep this sacred creed alive and functioning.

I beleive one couldn't ask for a better person that Mr. Romney to support and defend the Constitution. He has always held the position that states should make the decisions of major social issues.

BTW - The whole "Mormons are not Christians" debate has been beat to death. You are wrong.

I like Romney, but I'm keeping my options open. Last time I checked, the voting was a year away or so.

"The setting gave Mitt the opportunity to use the phrase "innovation and transformation" so many times that I quit counting. Except that it's hard to be all that forward looking when you are standing in, well, a museum."

...in Michigan. While talking about American cars.

I know about a great state jout east that is consistently in the forefront of technological innovation, and has been since the 1700s, in such fields as shipbuilding, textiles, medicine, computers, software, biotech, and armaments. But I don't think Romney's ever been there.

Mitt did OK as governor of MA. I did take exception to his bashing his state when traveling outside it. (It was like those "take my wife... please!" jokes.) But, he got a near-universal health care bill through. He deserves some credit for that. I'm pretty sure I would prefer him over McCain, as he'd probably have a more moderate position on Iraq (although we don't know for sure). But this would all be a bit moot where my vote is concerned, because policywise I know the Dem candidates would be better than anything coming out of the GOP process. Because all that seems to come out of that these days is movement conservative craziness...

Karen,

Here's CNN's Kitty Pilgrim, sitting in for Lou Dobbs on his weekend program "Lou Dobbs This Week," which aired on Saturday -- a day after the Sargent-at-Arms release and a week after the Think Progess debunking.

Please Karen, take a moment to read this and consider whether Pilgrim should be reprimanded or fired.

~~Quote~~

(Tease) PILGRIM: ... Also, the consuming debate in Washington. Should House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have access to a military plane at taxpayers' expense? We'll have a special report on that.

(Tease) PILGRIM: Coming up, the speaker of the House says she never asked for a big airplane. So whose idea was it for Nancy Pelosi to fly a lot better than first class? We'll have a report.

(Begin "special report") PILGRIM: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plane problems set off a firestorm of criticism this week on Capitol Hill. Now the controversy has many people questioning what kind of special transportation privileges the speaker of the House should have.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): After weeks of intense accusations, the speaker of the House tried to set the record straight. But Nancy Pelosi was in denial.

PELOSI: We didn't ask for a larger plane, period.

PILGRIM: She was so in denial, she even denied it was a plane.

PELOSI: And by the way, it's not a plane. A plane seems to make you think your plane's waiting there. It's a ride.

PILGRIM: What Mrs. Pelosi's staff admits to is asking the DOD for a plane that could fly nonstop to San Francisco. The DOD letter in response doesn't reveal whether she indeed asked for a C-32, the same plane as Vice President Dick Cheney's Air Force Two, a plane that carries 45 people. The DOD letter only says they will provide a plane subject to availability and not always guaranteed.

"Aircraft assigned to these missions will accommodate between seven and not more than 10 passengers. Your family will be required to provide reimbursement to the Treasury..."

White House spokesman Tony Snow defended her right to military transport as speaker of the House.

SNOW: I don't believe she's asking to be sent, you know, on the space shuttle.

QUESTION: Would you like her to be put on the space shuttle, Tony?

PILGRIM: But the debate on the House floor raised voices and passions.

REP. DAN BURTON (R), INDIANA: And I hope that Speaker Pelosi will take the time to come down and explain to the full House the reason why she thinks she should have $15 million a year to fly back and forth to California.

REP. GINNY BROWN-WAITE (R), FLORIDA: Congress should not be above coach or first class travel.

REP. ERIC CANTOR (R), CHIEF DEPUTY WHIP: The ability to fly on a jumbo jetliner is a privilege never before granted to a member of Congress.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM (on camera): John Murtha, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee says that he wants to hold hearings later this spring on executive and congressional travel on military aircraft. He's given the Defense Department a one-month deadline to provide records on congressional travel for the last two years.

Coming up, controversy over plans to vaccinate girls with a drug that could prevent cervical cancer. We'll have that special report.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/11/ldtw.01.html

~~End Quote~~

"So whose idea was it for Nancy Pelosi to fly a lot better than first class?" Pilgrim's "special report" a day after the SAA press release and a week after the Think Progress debunking doesn't tell her viewers.

She doesn't tell her viewers that Hastert had a plane.

She doesn't tell her viewers that security after 9/11 was the reason the Speaker was given a plane.

She states -- falsely -- that "Pelosi's staff admits to is asking the DOD for a plane that could fly nonstop."

She never mentions what was known and knowable to any competent journalist for over a week: That the Sargent-at-Arms made the request, for security reasons, because the plane Hastert used would require refueling to go cross country.

This was a "Special report" on a news program. There is just no way this can be considered defensible "journalism." And yet ... Next week, next month, next year Kitty Pilgrim will still have her job....

How does it end, Karen? What can we do?

Tucker: You obviously know nothing about Massachusetts and don't live in Mass. I do. Before Romney became governor, there were three successive governors who were Republicans: William Weld, Paul Cellucci, And Jane Swift. They were all moderate Republicans that managed the economy reasonably well and the economy was not even close to "devestated" as you say. It was perhaps a bit depressed in 2002 because of the dot-com bust that depressed many high-tech states. The economy rebounded largely by growth in the bio-tech sector, and then later by a resurgent high-tech sector. Tech sector ups and downs have nothing to do with Romney. In fact, Romney was hardly ever governing during his four years in office here, because he was already traveling nationally to get support for a Presidential run. Lastly, funding for Romney's health care plan is largely provided by grants from the federal government, and that is why he did not have to raise taxes. Is that a great achievement? Ask any Massachusetts resident what his great achievements were, and they would be hard-pressed to tell you. They might say that he didn't screw anything up too badly unless they work in social services.

It is a truly a remarkable thing to hear some of the ignorant opinions that have been stated about the various issues on this forum.

For the record, the LDS church is not strictly "pro-life." The official position is that they are against abortion except in case of rape, incest, life-threatening fetal deformations, or when the life of the mother is in danger. That being said, the greatest thing about the LDS church is that the followers are encouraged to think for themselves and create their own opinions on issues. Obviously, Mitt Romney had a viewpoint on abortion that was different than that of the majority of mormons. However, it was still in the confines of the official church position. Harry Reid, the senate majority leader is also a mormon and a democrat. They think for themselves and are still able to follow God.

The White Horse theory is another example of a distortion of the facts, spread by anti-mormons. If we scruitinize everything anyone ever says, we will be blogging for the rest of our lives on issues that don't have any practical relevance.

I am an active member of the LDS church, but I will not be voting for Mitt because he is as well. I am currently looking at all candidates and am leaning towards Obama. Either way, I am certain that Mitt Romney is fully capable leading this country to a better future. If a George W. Bush could be in office for 8 years, a far more capable Mitt Romney shouldn't have too much difficulty being elected.

"He was already traveling nationally to get support for a Presidential run"

Yes, that's true. He was absentee in many cases. But compared to what we're used to getting out of Republicans lately, he would probably be relatively harmless.

Sorry, Hilton. Denial isn't an answer. Neither is ignoring probably the first or second biggest thing Romney will be facing - his religious beliefs (the other being his rather slim record). What his religion is and how he answers to it matters to a lot of people, religious and non-religious, and it has to be explained. It can be an opportunity or it can be dodged. I think dodging would be a mistake.

Is it like Kennedy back in 1960? Perhaps. Maybe Mitt needs to play it up the way Kennedy did. But the proof was that Kennedy clearly wasn't letting his religion dictate his decisions (certainly not his personal life either). Mitt can't flip-flop on this one. He's got to be forthcoming and honest because it's going to show.

From my own personal experiences as a Utahn, stated (perhaps too much, admittedly) above, there is more emphasis and loyalty paid to the religion over the country in Mormon faith. If you're an outsider you're just s*** out of luck and too bad for you. I don't want those kind of thinkers in charge of my federal government. We've seen how disastrous it's been with Bush.

It upsets me that someone in this country can still be liked or hated, just because of his or her religious beliefs. I hope all of us can evaluate the candidates based on their qualifications and political beliefs, and avoid becoming a country of biggots.

I second your notion. But since you probably do have to cover these announcements, I see no reason why you have to submit to the manipulation. They show you a play, and you present it to us like documentary, when you really ought to give us a backstage pass.

A classic example is the smart photographer who snapped a photo of Hastert climbing into his SUV a block down from where he made an appearance at a photo-op for fuel efficiency in his hybrid car.

Stagecraft only works because you refuse to break the fourth wall.

Karen, I know this is a OT, but can anyone explain why Time is running a cartoon based on the totally debunked Pelosi 'story?'

http://www.time.com/time/cartoons/20070211/6.html

What I find funny, is how much people these days say there should be a separation of church and state. Yet everyone is using Mitts religion as a reason NOT to vote for him. You say Mormons are not christian, yet the official name of the church is 'The church of Jesus Christ, of latter day saints'... The Book of Mormon is Another testament of Jesus Christ.... Of all the candidates out there, good luck in trying to dig up dirt on Mitt Romney. Because he is LDS, he has lived up to the high standards that all christians SHOULD have. 'By their fruits, ye shall know them' .... I am LDS, and probably tend to vote republican the majority of the time. That isn't to say I am going to vote for Mitt. I like Gulliani and I will listen to the debates and vote on whom I believe is the best candidate, whether that be Democrat or Republican. What I guess I'm trying to get across is, no matter what religion the person is, shouldn't have a bearing on whether the man is capable of being the President of the United States of America.

Do I even need to point out that the anonymous Utahn references "the Internet" to support the "White Horse Prophecy". He apparently holds a grudge and is willing to believe anything anyone posts on their webpage provided it disparages the Mormons.

Who decides what constitutes a Christian?

Ask anyone on the street, "What is a Christian?" and you will receive replies such as, "A Christian is a follower of Christ." Or, "A Christian is someone who has taken Christ as their Savior." Or, "A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus."

All of these kinds of natural, honest definitions apply perfectly to "Mormons" (who are in reality members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST).

Ask Mormons themselves if they are Christians and after the absurdity of the question has worn off, you will find a uniform and resounding "Yes!" LDS study and understanding of Jesus Christ is broad and deep. Jesus is at the very center of every doctrine and He is the Head of the Church. LDS devotion to Christ is total. Mitt Romney declared that Jesus Christ is his "personal Savior."

Individuals decide for themselves whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or so on. Mormons are Christian because they have chosen to follow Him.

Ask anti-Mormons, such as SOME Evangelicals, why Mormons are not Christians, and suddenly the meaning changes to a hyper-technical definition designed specifically to exclude Mormons (or other denominations that are sufficiently different from their own). "Mormons are not Christians because we disagree on certain points of doctrine." "Mormons are not Christian because they are not signatories to certain synods, conventions, or councils." "Mormons are not Christian because their church is not old enough."

Creating a definition of Christianity that is intentionally designed to exclude Mormons is intellectually and morally dishonest.

Continuing to label members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "non-Christian" despite their claims, protestations, and actions to the contrary is an act of judging.

In my understanding of the Bible, acts of dishonesty and judging others are decidedly un-Christian - no matter how you define it.

Hey Y'all,

My next door neighbors are members of the Reorganized Church of the Latter Day Saints, and while I can't tell you exactly how their religion differs from the original LDS, I know full well that both of them definitely consider themselves
to be CHRISTIANS. Also, some of my distant family members are MORMONS. All are very good people and NOT one bit pushy about their religion.

It is true that I don't know all the beliefs of the MORMONS, but I do know that family is very important. Family is so important that they baptist long-deceased family members by proxy to ensure they are part of the family in the hereafter. (Or at least that is my understanding or misunderstanding.) It is one of their missions to identify all deceased family members. That is why they have the world's largest depository of genealogical records in the world in Salt Lake City. I have used their local library for genealogical research many times.

I was a Southern Baptist in a former life time.
That was during a period when Baptists were considered moderate, not like the present Southern Baptist power seekers/grabbers.

Too often within recent years, I have heard people, such as Rev. Falwell, tell others they are NOT REAL CHRISTIANS. (I think he said this
on CNN to Barry Lynn or whatever his name is, the guy who advocates for separation of church and state.) NOW, that really irks me to no end, especially considering some of the non-Christian comments that Rev. Falwell has made.

The attempt to define what is and is NOT CHRISTIANITY or REAL CHRISTIANITY and the attempt to marginalize other religions bugs me tremendously. Put another way--it seems to me to be an attempt to EXCLUDE others: NO YOU WILL NOT BE ONE OF THE CHOSEN TO ARRIVE IN THE HEREAFTER WITH US.

This kind of bickering over religion and what is or what is NOT the TRUE RELIGION or who is or who is NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN seems to me to defeat the whole purpose of religion.

Many thanks to the commenters who are members of the LDS for stepping forth.

And that's all I have to say about that!

Cheers! :)

I can totally see why many of you uneducated Americans want to beat to death this whole Mormon religion thing, because you are so disgusted with your own beliefs that it is not fair to see others who live what they preach and preach what they love. It's okay, we will always be hear to help you when times are rough. We will continue to send more Humanitarian aid around the world (163 countries currently) than any other organization in the world no matter what their beliefs are. We will continue to strive hard to support our local government leaders whether we voted for them or not. We will continue to show that there is such a bigger purpose to life than arguing about someone's beliefs. I was a part of the meetings in Salt Lake City when Mitt took over the Olympics. I was very impressed by his leadership and his integrity. He wanted to save the Olympics for the people of the world, and he did just that. I saw people from around the world, with many different beliefs embrace him and support him. It would be great honor to have such a leader leading our great country. I truly hope that people will take a good at each candidate and vote for the one that they feel will do the best, please do not allow yourself to be so caught up with minimal issues. Keep the Faith.

Mainline Christians say Mormans are not Christians because they don't rely on Jesus Christ ALONE -- they believe you need Jesus Christ PLUS...

JGolden Incarnate -

You should check out www.watchman.org
The Bible does not need a "supplement" such as The Book of Mormon, nor does it imply the need for a prophet(Joseph Smith) after Jesus.

I'm sure you genuienely believe what you've been taught. Faith without reason is dangerous.

To the general public - don't believe the spin that CNN puts on anything. There are a handful of people (mostly left-wing liberals) that determine what you see on CNN. Their sole goal is to get ratings, not portray the truth. Do your own due diligence (outside of the news channels) on any candidate you would vote for.

"people like Zota and Peter will always try to misguidedly use bad information"

Dan in Boulder:
I said that Joseph Smith found the golden plates of the angel Moroni in upstate New York.
http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1293-1,00.html
This account is in the front of every Book of Mormon.

I also said that evangelical Christians very strongly disagree with the LDS -- I point to the angry evangelicals in these comments as further citation of this fact.

Exactly what "bad information" was I misguidedly using?

"hey believe you need Jesus Christ PLUS..."

Let me clarify:

There is a huge amount of completely mistaken information about the LDS here. But that is sort of my point. There's a lot of mistaken information about the LDS out there in general, mostly among it's evangelical competition.

As far as the "Jesus Plus" suggestion -- the Book of Mormon is an account of Jesus. In America. Make of that what you will, but it's still Christian by definition.

His social issue stances in Massachusetts are the same as Giuliani basically. Giuliani runs on his turnaround of crime in NYC which was best encapsulated by his 9/11 photo op. Well the current president also has held office based on a 9/11 speech.

Mitt's background shows far more ability to turn things more positive within companies, and he probably understands economics better than any republican or democratic candidate.

The dem hopefulls come from legal backgrounds, and are great with the written word. As impressed as everyone is with Hillary when they meet her in person (even republicans) I don't think her submarining of Obama has prooved particularly attractive.

The whole Christian/non thing seems to have very little to do with the actions of the individuals in office or running for office. Will we ever see a candidate intelligent enough to plan out their campaign and run on real substance and vision? I haven't seen one during my lifetime. Not that the lazy media helps, thank goodness John Stewart gets to knock them a bit.

(I do not work for, nor do I have any affiliation with Romney or any other candidate)

but on the religious note.
Christ wasn't Christian, you gotta problem with him too?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How do people still conclude that a church with Jesus Christ's name is not Christian? Hopefully Mitt will win because he's the best candidtate, but as a sidenote, with all this publicity for the Church, maybe Mitt's run will finally clear up all these misconceptions about Mormons.

Wasn't Henry Ford one of the biggest anti-semite Nazi sympathizers of the 1930's? Didn't he take it upon himself to distribute Hitler's book here in the U.S.? After a week where we heard incessantly about how one campaign was linked to so-called anti-Catholics, where is the outrage from the media?

“Beware of the false prophets [or anyone claiming to speak God’s word], who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness’” (Matt. 7:15-23).

Mormon bleifs aside,

Does anybody have any accuarate figures on Mormon Church growth. I have seen some sources that suggest that the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for whom conversion is a key tenet, have used "creative counting" methodologies in tabulating numbers of believers.

I have seen other sources though that state that the Mormon Church is verifiably growing very rapidly.

Which is correct?

When I was in Arizona, our soon-to-be-recalled Governor Mecham pushed for a Christian Nation resolution recognizing Christianity as the official state religion. What eventually killed the bill was objections by evangelicals! You see, Mecham was a Mormon, and all they agreed Arizona with the idea of the resolution, they wanted to make clear that Christianity did not include Mormons.

Gotta love it.

WHICH Romney announced?

In fairness to the Evangelicals, the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith was not exactly eucumenical himself and openly taught that all other churches (the Catholic Church in particular, but including Protestant Churches) are Satanic in origin.

Evidently, declarations that other Churches are Satanic are (were?) part of secret Mormon Temple initiation ceremonies.

Do Mormons still beleive this? Openess should be both ways.

It makes sense that Romney made his announcement in Michigan. He wanted to be safely removed from the scene of his failed governorship.

Although talk about Romney will focus on his Mormonism and his flip-flopping, it's his time in office that should matter the most. During his scant four years of experience, Romney proved to be an extremely weak and unpopular governor. That's the single most important knock against him. If he's the best the GOP has to offer, it's a sad day for democracy.

On Romney's watch, Massachusetts trended negatively relative to the rest of the country. This slide is obscured by the fact that the state compared so favorably to the rest of the country before Romney came to office, so that even after its slide it was ahead of the pack. However, any look at the measurable indicators will confirm the Romney years were a poor run for the Commonwealth.

Take the job market as an example. At the end of 2002, before Romney took office, Massachusetts was suffering through the depths of a labor-market recession. However, as bad as things were in Massachusetts, they compared favorably to the country as a whole. The unemployment rate was 5.6%, compared to 6.0% nationally. By the end of 2006, after four years of Romney's rule, the unemployment was down to 4.5% nationally, but still stood at 5.3% in Massachusetts. Romney's state had gone from being considerably better off than the nation as a whole, to being considerably worse off.

In fact, things were worse even than the unemployment rate would lead you to believe. The only reason unemployment fell at all is because people were fleeing the state. Jobs were actually destroyed in Massachusetts on Romney's watch, at a time when they were being created at a decent rate nationally.

It's not just the job market that was lousy on Romney's watch, either. The change in Massachusetts' gross state product compares unfavorably to the change in the nation's gross domestic product during the Romney era, too. Massachusetts is still a wealthy state, but its lead has dwindled. Real estate is another example -- the Massachusetts market, which has traditionally been unusually strong, underperformed the national real estate market by a margin on Romney's watch. Various other social and economic stats also show Massachusetts giving up at least part of its lead over the country as a whole, under the Romney administration.

Romney was essentially a do-nothing governor. He spent much of his single term out of state, making bad jokes at his constituents' expense, while trying to make the connections and raise the funds to run for president. To him, the state was nothing but a doormat on which to wipe his feet on the way to the Oval Office.

To see just how useless he was, look up his Wikipedia biography. The brief mention of his actual time as governor doesn't list a single accomplishment. The highlights of his leadership included being sworn in, and then, four years later, watching his hand-picked successor get brutally blown out by her Democratic opponent last November. Between those two milestones, there's nothing really worth mentioning. The political developments in the state were initiatives of the legislature or the courts, not the governor. Romney was just taken along for the ride, while he focused his real energy on trying to set himself up to be president, rather than trying to accomplish anything for those in his own state.

Romney declined to run for reelection, knowing he'd be defeated by an embarrassing margin that would kill his presidential ambitions. So, Massachusetts voters never got a proper chance to show him what they thought of his leadership. Instead, they were stuck treating the 2006 election as a referendum on his administration, with his Lt. Governor, Healey, playing his stand-in. By that point, Romney's approval rating stood at 34%. Predictably, Healey was defeated by a margin of two votes to one, despite having a vastly larger campaign war-chest than her opponent.

So, as you hear the pro-Romney spin, keep in mind that those who know his leadership best want nothing to do with him. Keep in mind that when given a chance to lead, he was an absentee landlord, under whose tenure Massachusetts, which traditionally outperforms the nation as a whole, slipped badly.

Romney will rightly be criticized for his transparently opportunistic flip-flops on pretty much every social issue worth mentioning. He'll rightly be viewed as a man with no convictions, willing to do whatever is needed to acquire power for himself. But, just as important as his personal immorality is the simple and unavoidable fact that he was really, really bad at his last job. When someone fails as miserably on the job as Romney did, why should he expect a promotion?

"declarations that other Churches are Satanic are (were?) part of secret Mormon Temple initiation ceremonies."

Joesph Smith was a Freemason and he used similar initiation ceremonies in his Church. The rumors of calling other churches "Satanic" is an extension of the same baseless smear directed against the Masons. (This attack actually dates back to the Templars...)

Probably no coincidence -- the Anti-Masonic Party also formed in upstate New York, just a few years after Smith found the golden tablets.

"When someone fails as miserably on the job as Romney did, why should he expect a promotion?"

Are you suggesting Romney is a Miserable Failure"?

oh shit...

Here's a 10 page brochure on how Mormons are Christian - http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LDSChristian.pdf

Interestingly, Mormons have no problem calling our Catholic and Protestant friends "Christian".

Karen - Please read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/how-the-pelosi-757-lie-_b_41145.html

Also, please comment on the editorial cartoon posted at Time.com as mentioned above by Anonymous:

http://www.time.com/time/cartoons/20070211/6.html

Do you, as a journalist with direct access to many of these media figures feel any sense of responsibility for preventing a known falsehood from being projected into the public discourse?

Are Mormon's members of a cult, Maybe. Are Mormon's good people, YES.

However I would NEVER elect a man that MAKES his wife vale her face in a Prayer circle in the Temple. A woman is NOT allowed to show her face during prayer in the Mormon Temple.

Also, During Mitts run for for Govornor, he HID the FACT that his wife would NOT use Dr's from the state that he said was home. Insead she FLEW to UTAH to see Dr's there. Was he honest about that, NO. Will he be honest in the future, NO.

As him about his Wifes Drs in Utah. Ask him or ANY mormon about woman must cover their faces during prayer in the Temple.

Do we want a man that does not belive woman are equals running our country. NO we don't!

I don't know what is more a waste. Reading the garbage you spew or you taking up space. Why don't you go back to school and learn about journalism instead of spouting off your leftest bias view.

Being 'a Christian' (noun) vs. being 'Christian' (adjective)

What makes a Christian (noun) Christian (adjective)? I know many self-proclaimed Christians who aren't very Christian in their behavior. On the other hand, I know Jews who are some of the most Christian (used as an adjective) people I've ever met.

Mitt Romney regards Christ as his personal Savior and he has said this publicly. Romney doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he doesn't swear and he's been married to the same women for almost 40 years...He's Christian enough for me.

Personally, I would rather be Christian (adjective) than be labeled a Christian (noun) by others.

Being 'a Christian' (noun) vs. being 'Christian' (adjective)

What makes a Christian (noun) Christian (adjective)? I know many self-proclaimed Christians who aren't very Christian in their behavior. On the other hand, I know Jews who are some of the most Christian (used as an adjective) people I've ever met.

Mitt Romney regards Christ as his personal Savior and he has said this publicly. Romney doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he doesn't swear and he's been married to the same woman for almost 40 years...He's Christian enough for me.

Personally, I would rather be Christian (adjective) than be labeled a Christian (noun) by others.

Covering one's head or face during prayer is an act of humility embraced by many religions.

And, as for the doctors, don't you have a regular doctor? Perhaps she has found a doctor that is helpful in her medical needs (heaven knows we are all trying to find good health care).

I don't see either of these arguments as serving a purpose in helping us elect a president. It's just gossip and rumors if you ask me.

I am an atheist. Perhaps that's why I find this entire discussion deeply puzzling. I'm not sure why the private religious belief of a Presidential Candidates would bear so heavily on voting. Why decide your vote for someone who would lead the country based on something as abstract as religion?

I thought it was supposed to be based on their policies and track records (and therefore I'm not particularly in favor of Romney, myself, but good grief, give the man a break over being a Mormon).

Personally I'm rather disappointed there hasn't been a popular secular candidate (and likely wouldn't be in the future, I suppose).

I am a LDS and have a friend from college who is admittedly gay and I do not discriminate against him and My family likes him also. He has rights as well as I do. Should he want to marry another man? I do not believe he should be able to receive the benefits of a married man and woman. I believe in traditional marriage and do not believe in discrimination. Two different issues, no flip-flop.
I do not believe in abortion except in the extreme cases we all know about but, I also support the law that says abortion is legal in some states, or is it in all of them now?, because I support the laws of the land, no flip flop . There is no flip flop. look at his record on his web site. If you asked Mitt he would tell you he supports the laws of the land and a womans right to choose because it is a law of the land, but he is pro-life. no flip flop. Why is this so difficult to understand?

February 13th, '07

Mormon Mitt Romney will be compelled at some point to address the problems instigated by those who opeatate the political arm of the Mormon church and these are the operatives David McConkie et al of his law firm Kirton & McConkie. These lawyers and lobbyists always led by political operative David McConkie, and his staunch Mormon political ally Orrin Hatch who is one of the two U.S. senators from the Beehive state, probably will cause more problems than not for Mitt Romney.

The persecutory nature of the political arm of the Mormon church as led by Mormon church lawyer David McConkie is such that opponents of Mormonism and non-Mormons alike are targeted and harassed in many ways. The religious leader of the Mormon church who is this religion's president Gordon Hinckley gives this church lawyer and lobbyist (David McConkie) a free hand with no oversight at all.

Mixing the church with the state is commonplace in Utah where despite the inherent civil rights violations imposed on citizens because of this religious persecution the Mormon church remains unchallenged. David McConkie who is cruel and intolerant of non-Mormons and those who question his and his law firm's prejudiced practices garners the most notoriety for staving off litigation that could be initiated by victims of his and the Mormon church's religious persecution against non-Mormons and opponents of Mormonism in general.

Remember our Founding Father James Madison spoke explicitly about church influence being mixed with state governance. James Madison said "...that religion and Government will both exist...greater...the less they are mixed..." These words are equally true now as they were then when this giant among our Founding Fathers first said them.

It's my personal experience of enduring such religious persecution by the Mormon church as executed by David McConkie that enables me to speak as I do and so know Mitt Romney has much to address and overcome. For about the first decade I was divorced the Mormon church followed me to each new residence I moved into, by David McConkie tracking me through surveillance methods, and sent missionaries to my new residence. Finally after I become deeply disgusted I was compelled to order the Mormons to leave me alone.

Additionally the Mormon church's religious delegation in Washington which is comprised of those elected politicians in the national government--the U.S. senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett respectively along with Representatives Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop plus HHS secretary Mike Leavitt (who left in the middle of his Utah governorship to go to Washington and become a federal bureaucrat)--will become another issue Mitt Romney must address. These Mormon politicians are like poison insidiously spreading through Washington while they surreptitiously plot their next move toward overtaking the white house. Altogether they're a dangerous bunch.

Added to this is the fact that Mormonism is considered a cult. Rituals conducted in the Mormon church are so secretive and blasephemous they are perceived as satanic. The nature of these rituals such as the "baptism for the dead" is considered to be cultish.

In his bid for the Republican nomination to be the next president Mitt Romney has his work cut out for him. He has a great deal to overcome.

Thanks,
Kathy Caudle
Salt Lake City, UT

Bottom line: Every single bit of "information" posted by non-LDS people on this sight is in some way incorrect or distorted. I assure anyone who isn't as "informed" as these people that if you want accurate, detailed information about the church, you can find out everything on this website:

www.lds.org

If you want to know about cars, you ask a mechanic. If you want to really know about a religion, you need to ask those that actually belong to it. Anyone else is unreliable, especially those who seem to know so much on this sight.

email me if you have any questions or comments

locohilton@hotmail.com

Also, Kathy, You obsviously have a personal issue with the church and therefore everything negative you say about it must be taken with a grain of salt. My guess is that the "danger" you're speaking of stems from your experience with one man (David Mckonkie). To take that singular experience and then apply it to the church as a whole shows intellectual laziness. Many people label George Bush as an oil thirsty war-monger. Would they be accurate then in saying that all American presidents are the same way? Or that the USA in general is that way as well? Of course not. Similarly, to base one's opinions of the church as a whole on David McKonkie and your personal opinion (assuming that he is even guilty as you claim) of his actions shows ignorance.

My guess is the great majority of those that know LDS members would say that they are good, genuine, trustworty, and sincere people.

Putting aside his religion and his view on social issues, I believe we should look at Mitt Romney's track record, abilities, and platform.

He has been remarkably successful in some very difficult ventures; founding Bain Capital, doing a splendid job with the Olympics, and as governor of MA. It seems clear that he has been a superb executive, and has both clarity of thought as well as raw intelligence.

Personally, I like what I hear. His positions, his platform, makes a great deal of sense.

How in the world can anyone claim that Joseph Smith and the LDS church call other religious denominations "Satanic" when one of our foundational creeds state, " 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." I have been a member of the LDS Church for 25 years and have attended the Temples for much of that time. I have never heard or seen a practice that would proclaim any other denomination as Satanic. I've heard lots of so called Christians call me and my denomination Satanic and I take great offense.

I love Dan's comment about being a Christian Christian. I think there is also a difference between being a "Christian" and being "righteous" or a "Disciple of Christ." If we are righteous we do our very best to follow the teachings of Christ, recognize when we do wrong, and perform proper repentence to correct our mistakes with the Savior.

A Disciple of Christ takes righteousness to a higher level. They are truly on a personal mission to become as much like Jesus Christ as possible before they die.

I have already made the decision to back Romney 100%. I look forward to the 2008 race and the ridiculous things that will be said by the other candidates, especially the long time politicians who think the average American is glib and will accept what they say. I only pray that we are not glib and really study what is said.

Mitt will definitely have his work cut out for individuals like Kathy that have such twisted views of Mormonism that she will reject any meaningful discussion of Romney's presidential merits beyond her obvious deep hostility toward Mormonism. Even if anything she said is really true about Mormons, what in the world does this have to do with Mitt? Does she seriously believe in the "dangerous" nature of Mormon politicians? She gives them way too much credit. And by the way, the so-called white horse prophesy is problematic in that there are only several second-hand versions of what Joseph Smith really said and there is no first-hand source. Regardless of this point, the second-hand sources of this prophecy have been greatly distorted by several on this blog. The recounted story is that the day would come when the U.S. Constitution would hang by a thread, and that if it were to be saved at all, Mormon Elders would step in to save it (not take it over as some have suggested on this page). Go to the exact, credible sources to see for yourself, not to some biased variation: Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 15; v. 2, p. 182.

Dear LDS members:

The original point was that having a Mormon presidential candidate could provoke a minor civil war among the various evangelical christian denominations. Everything here seems to be further proof of this suggestion. And trying to quiet down the history of the church (Jesus in New York, golden plates translated with a magic rock, Missouri = garden of Eden) is just going to make the propaganda flame war all the more fun to watch from the sidelines. The early history of the LDS is very American, meaning deeply weird. Best to embrace it.

Dear non-LDS evangelicals:

The Mormon church was founded as a separatist denomination, and it's founder was martyred by a violent mob. When you act as outside oppressors, calling them "satanic" or "non-christian" you are following a clear historical pattern, increasing their sense of specialness, separateness. If you want to critique their beliefs or practice, this is exactly the wrong way to do it. But I guess that kind of bigoted cluelessness is part of the reason the LDS is growing so much faster than your churches?

A Christian is an individual who has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour and who follows His teachings, AND keeps His commandments.
Actually only Jesus Christ knows exactly who is a Christian and who is not, for He sees the heart of all. From all appearances Mitt Romney is a superb Christian by his actions and words.
But remember, this is an election for President not pastor, neither is it an election for the "perfect Christian", for there are none perfect save Jesus only. The Constitution does not allow for, nor specify regarding the religious affiliation of any candidate, rather it wisely leaves the choice up to each voter based on their knowledge and behavior of each candidate.
It would be very interesting to make an observance of all candidates behaviour and words, in both private and public life.
For one stark example, Mr. Giulliani is painted as the perfect hero of 911, but yet enormous questions remain about his intimate foreknowledge concerning the collapse of the buildings, including WTC 7, when no such knowledge was available to anyone at the time, nor the expertise to say that they would collpse. NO STEEL FRAMED BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF SUCH BUILDINGS,and 3 fall in the space of a few hours, yet incredibly, Mr. Giulliani was told of it minutes before it happened....who told him?? His whole role on 911 needs careful scrutiny and reeks of collusion and/or foreknowledge.I would like to see him questioned hard on the matter.

I love that "Jesus in New York, golden plates translated with a magic rock, Missouri = garden of Eden". That is reducing someones beliefs down to a few predjudiced statements!
How about "Guy walks on water, man get stone tablets from someone talking out of a burning bush, somebody sees someone walking around who was crucified three days ago".
You read something negative about any religious belief and it can be reduced to 'story telling nonsense'.
What about 'Man jumps from plane at 30,000 feet, breaks through roof of building and walks away'. That sounds ridiculous too. But it really happened.
It is amazing to me that with the liberal view of everything seemingly to trying to protect the freedoms of people of different backgrounds and beliefs, why his religion (and nearly EVERY candidate has some kind of religeous background) would even be an issue.
Let it go or investigate it more deeply. Otherwise, if you choose to be a bigotted, narrow-minded religion hater keep it to yourself.
The right has to.

"Guy walks on water, man get stone tablets from someone talking out of a burning bush, somebody sees someone walking around who was crucified three days ago"

Excellent point. These events are foreground tenets of Christian faith. Any Christian would acknowledge belief in these events outlined just the way you have. One major difference with the LDS is that the outright statement of core beliefs causes discomfort or event anger. The fact that Jesus walked the Earth in New England is a central tenet of the Mormon faith. Why is it a problem to simply state it as such?

"Let it go or investigate it more deeply."

Believe me, I have investigated it more deeply. The documented facts of Joseph Smith's life are much stranger than angelic tablets and magic rocks....

But I didn't go in to that. I only summarized a few core beliefs of the Latter-Day Saints. Telling me to keep it to myself is an intolerant, irreligious statement. If someone briefly but accurately summarized the idea of transubstatiation, would a faithful Catholic tell that person to "keep it to yourself"? If you feel secure in your beliefs, you have no reason to feel insecure about other people investigating and discussing your faith.

Oh Zota, (sigh)
I have a feeling that you are correct about the minor civil war among evangelicals. I have read articles outlining several well known evengelical leaders that have had meetings with Mr. Romney and have come away feeling very comfortable with supporting him. They all said basically that they may not agree on doctrinal beliefs, but they find him quite capable of representing them as President. If these leaders formally and publicly back him, their followers will have fits!

Your examples in paranthesis are the exact types of distorted garbage that detractors use to make spiritual events look heretical or unbelievable. God and His son Jesus Christ did in fact visit the Prophet Joseph as he prayed to know which Church to join. I know it as well as I know I am human. The "magic rock" is the same type of device used by Old Testament Prophets for interpretations (see Exodus 28:30, Deuteronomy 33:8), are they ridiculous? Missouri has never been designated as the Garden of Eden, but as the place Adam and Eve dwelt after being cast out of the Garden of Eden. We have no idea where the garden was actually located.

These points only increase my knowledge that Joseph Smith was a Prophet and that Jesus Christ leads the LDS Church. If having Jesus personally oversee the restoration of HIS church on the earth and providing the tools to do so is "weird," then I do embrace it.

But one must keep perspective as well. Where Adam and Eve dwelt and how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon into English have nothing to do with our salvation. It's only additional knowledge. The important thing to know is that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by Him.

"Where Adam and Eve dwelt and how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon into English have nothing to do with our salvation. It's only additional knowledge."

If that were true, there would only be one single Christian denomination. For better or worse, there are a lot of different Christian denominations. And judging by the wars they've had over the centuries, they seem to have some pretty serious issues with each other based on what are -- to me -- minor differences in additional knowledge.

More significantly for believers, the provenance of the Book of Mormon is what makes Joseph Smith a Latter-Day Saint. It is the foundation of the LDS faith, apart from other Christian faiths. If faith in Jesus were all there was to it, there would be no LDS missionaries in any predominately Christian country. Clearly this is not the case.

And as I said before, the conflict with other Christian denominations is not primarily theological -- it's a market-based battle for converts. The LDS is already fast-growing, and a presidential candidate is fantastic advertising. Even if they did agree with the LDS on all matters of theology (and they don't), the other evangelical denominations are not going to take this competition lying down...

JGolden Incarnate:

Thank you for clarifying that Missouri was where Adam and Eve ended up after they were cast out of the Garden. (I can't wait to tell my friends from Missouri!)

Zota says, "The fact that Jesus walked the Earth in New England is a central tenet of the Mormon faith."

Well Zota, it is not a central tenet of the Mormon faith. It's not even a peripheral tenet. In fact it's not a tenet or principle at all. If you want to know what the central tenets are go to lds.org and check "The Articles of Faith" in the search box.
That Jesus walked and taught somewhere on the American Continent is an undisputed teaching of the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church. But where exactly remains to be discovered and clarified by the Church authorities for the moment.Some have speculated that it may have been in New England and it's a belief of some LDS but not all, just conjecture and guesswork, and it's all rather fun.
Zota also says,.."the conflict with other Christian denominations is not primarily theological -- it's a market-based battle for converts."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, my dear Zota, is not involved in any type of market based battle as you so describe, and is not competing with any other church or religious profession. The bringing of souls unto Christ is not a market, nor is it marketable in the worldly sense you portray. It is neither political nor profitable, and does not seek to measure itself to what others are doing or what trends in the market ot political arena predominate. It is the work of God.
The LDS Church will not use Mitt Romney nor does it need him. It stands boldly and independantly and scores are attracted to it because it is divine and true and not becuase Mitt romney is a fine example of it's principles. The Church benefits in it's image whenever any man woman or child who belongs to it lives it's teachings by example, if it so be Mitt Romney to be the example for the moment, fine, but the LDS aothoroties are not marketing him nor is he marketing the Church.

"In fact it's not a tenet or principle at all."

Belief that the Book of Mormon is the word of God is an article of faith. The provenance of the Book of Mormon is a the basis of that article, hence the testemony or the witnesses and Joseph Smith in the front of every Book of Mormon. The plates of Nephi -- which became the translated book of Mormon -- were buried in New York, because that was one of the historical locations of the account contained in the book of Mormon. Major portions of the Book of Mormon, the scripture of the LDS Church, are an account of Jesus in America.

So yeah. As long as you ignore the scripture that the LDS Church is based on, I guess it's not a tenet or principle at all.

"The bringing of souls unto Christ... is neither political nor profitable"

1) Utah
2) LDS is richest US Church relative to size

And furthermore: Pat Robertson.

"LDS aothoroties are not marketing him"

I never said that. I said that other evangelical denominations would feel threatened by the publicity given to another rapidly growing Church. Re-read the irrational "christian" attacks on the LDS in this thread an tell me they aren't threatened.

Zota,
The fact that there are so many Christian denominations proves the very necessity that Christ's Church needed to be restored from the apostacy that began soon after Christ's death.

The one defining model that you and others who seek to tear down LDS doctrines is that you all use beliefs and practices that have nothing to do with the doctrines of salvation. I hear all the time that we're not Christians, but not one of them can point out one thing that proves this. They can only talk about Joseph Smith, the Temple, and other facts of history that have nothing to do with the fact that He restored His Church, gave that Church His authority, and instructs His Church on how to continue to bring salvation to mankind.

On a side note, I would bet that if Mr. Romney gets the Republican nomination, he will carry Missouri in the general election.

"The fact that there are so many Christian denominations proves the very necessity that Christ's Church needed to be restored"

Wow. Way to mend fences with the other Christian denominations. Suggest that they're evidence of apostacy. That would look great on a lawn sign!

"I hear all the time that we're not Christians"

You hear that from other evangelical Christian denominations, not me. I'm not trying to win converts, so this isn't my fight. But all y'all christian soldiers have fun.

"Romney... will carry Missouri"

A lot of people in Missouri would probably agree that it's a kind of divine punishment to live there, so you may be right.

PS: If you believe the historical details of a religion don't really matter and shouldn't have any political implications, I have some land on a hill in Jerusalem I'd like to sell you.

It is 2007, and Mitt belongs to a church that MAKES woman vale their faces to pray. Gosh, just like Iraq and Iran....How can a man that MAKES his wife vale her face, stand up for her? How can a man that thinks he will be God of other planets?

Does he belive in Christ, I am sure he does..however look at the twistedness in what he belives in.

Mormons are members of a Cult. You must pay 10% of your money or you wont go to heaven....the only way to go to heaven (which Mormonds DONT call it that!) is to go to the Temple..in order to go to the temple you MUST give 10% of your money to the CHURCH...

Mormons belive that the ONLY way woman can have eternal life is to be married.

Sounds like a basic cult to me.

"MUST give 10% of your money to the CHURCH"

Which is true of many churches, dumbass.

These kind of distorted attacks by other chirstian denominations will probably cost Romney the Republican nomination. And when this happens, I truly hope that all christian denominations will re-affirm the principle of the separation of church and state. This principle is not for the sake of the state but for the protection of religious faith. (After six years of a rambling dry drunk apocalyptic prophet, we've sort or lost sight of that fact...)

When America is able to elect an agnostic or atheist president, religion will be safe from politics. Until then, it's going to be as entertaining as a car crash.