LDS Freedom Forum

Just how many threads about Mitt Romney will it take to get posters to agree with Janadele? It's like the guy who walks down the same street every morning and falls in the same hole. At what point, or just how many years go by before the guy decides to take a different route? Or in other words, realizes there's a hole in the road, accepts it and takes another path?

I am very grateful for the challenges given us by Janadele to defend our opinions of Mitt Romney. These discussions have helped me to better understand the thinking of less politically astute Mormons who do not understand the significance of many of the things Mitt Romney has said and done, and/or choose to ignore them. I think she has done a great deal to help expose Mitt Romney for what he is by motivating us to keep doing our homework.

lundbaek wrote:I am very grateful for the challenges given us by Janadele to defend our opinions of Mitt Romney. These discussions have helped me to better understand the thinking of less politically astute Mormons who do not understand the significance of many of the things Mitt Romney has said and done, and/or choose to ignore them. I think she has done a great deal to help expose Mitt Romney for what he is by motivating us to keep doing our homework.

YES, including me.

This whole nonsense is beyond ridiculous and I have already replied more than adequately.

Samuel, when you refer to what another has said stick to what has actually been said, and don't attribute your words to others. Your statement "...that Mitt has publicly said on MSM that God visited Jospeh Smith" has not been posted by me or anyone else to my knowledge.

Samuel the Lamanite wrote:Janadele: It appears to me that you are willingly blind to the religious cowardice of Mitt Romney. Only a blind person would say that Mitt has publicly said on MSM that God visited Jospeh Smith ...

lundbaek wrote:I am very grateful for the challenges given us by Janadele to defend our opinions of Mitt Romney. These discussions have helped me to better understand the thinking of less politically astute Mormons who do not understand the significance of many of the things Mitt Romney has said and done, and/or choose to ignore them. I think she has done a great deal to help expose Mitt Romney for what he is by motivating us to keep doing our homework.

Amen!!!

Janadell: I meant to say that Mitt for all sakes and purposes denied that God visited Joseph Smith. My problem with you and many Mitt worshipers is that they deny he said it and if he did, that it was a politically necessary move.

And then there are those who believe that the interview with Mitt Romney was somehow distorted or faked as he was speaking and the articles about what he said were lies. Had that been the case, a man of Mitt's means could have forced a retraction just as I remember Kojak (Telly Sevalis) did when a newspaper printed a lie about him. Nevertheless, there are those who want so desperately for Mitt to be President that they refuse to believe he said what he said. I guess it's not so hard to believe for someone who has been watching him since early 2003, who has researched his history in the political arena back to 1994, and who grew up in Massachusetts and knows what it takes to get elected to higher offices in that state. One does not get elected there on gospel and constitutional principles, nor on too many moral principles.

Lundbaeck: The danger in Mitt worship is that if he is elected and actaul implements his unConstitutional Agenda, that those Mormons who knowingly voted for him given what we've expoosed will be seen by Christ as willing conspirators in bringing down His inspired Constitution. I wouldn't want to stand before Christ at the Final Judgement and rationalize away your vote.

Samuel the Lamanite wrote:... a politically necessary move.

Samuel: No I do not believe it was a politically necessary move, not at all.

It was an unfortunate edited section of a hostile interview misunderstood by those who should know better.

One must remember that in a live interview when a point is not allowed continuance, expansion or clarification, answers can be incorrectly interpreted and misunderstood.

Mitt has been found worthy to represent Jesus Christ, holds a Temple Recommend, has at all times clearly stated his LDS allegiance, and identifies to the world as a devout and faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...and all that entails.

So did many of the Apostles in Joespeh's day but they tried to kill Jospeh and claimed he was a fallen prophet.

There is no poof whatsoever that the TV was doctored where he said that Moses was the last Prophet that God visited. If there was proof, then Mitt would certainly make that widely known in the Mormon community. He also spoke against and supprted two things denounced by GAs: abortion and homosexual marriage. He is slick and intelligent but he changes his tune so often, I can't tell where his true values/positions lie. IMO, he is a "conservative" Obama.

Again, Mitt has had every opportunity to set the record straight. Janadele, if you have contact with Mitt Romney or his campaign staff you would do well to advise him that his misstatement during that interview will very likely come bck to bite him. It certainly will if he comes stumping in this here part of Arizona. There has been no tampering with the recording not the reporting of that interview. We have seen that sort of thing done here in Arizona to former Governor Evan Meacham, and the media had egg all over its faces. The Arizona Republic suffered financially (loss of circulation) for its part in that deception and is on the ropes today due in part to continued distrust of the rag.

Lundback: Form my 40 years experience in politics, facts mean nothing when one worships his/her candiadte. I happen to love Ron Paul but beleive me I know some of his serious flaws. And, I've let he and his campaign mangers know this. I have NOT remained silent.

FWIW, I also like Jim DeMint my neighbor in SC.

lundbaek wrote:Again, Mitt has had every opportunity to set the record straight. Janadele, if you have contact with Mitt Romney or his campaign staff you would do well to advise him that his misstatement during that interview will very likely come bck to bite him. It certainly will if he comes stumping in this here part of Arizona. There has been no tampering with the recording not the reporting of that interview. We have seen that sort of thing done here in Arizona to former Governor Evan Meacham, and the media had egg all over its faces. The Arizona Republic suffered financially (loss of circulation) for its part in that deception and is on the ropes today due in part to continued distrust of the rag.

Mitt will never set the record straight, because the cost to do so would outweigh the benefit. And Mitt is NOTHING if not calculating.

It's cost/benefit analysis, and much of Mitt's success is based on his (laudable in most cases) extremely rare talent and instinct to be able to do so.

IMO, the GAs should make Mitt make the record correct or take away his TR. In fact, I would say that the Church would officially publish what he said unless he made the record stright. I won't hold my breath> Mitt is too important and too visible. A grunt like me would have to.

Reminds me of the last talk I gave in a sacrament meeting a few months ago. It was on personal revelation. If I had said that the last time I knew of that God has spoken to man was to Moses, the bishop might have let it go until he could set me straight in private. And if you remember that ABC 4 News report, it stated that "We also asked the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for a comment about Romney's statement. But the Church politely declined our request." It appears the Church PR Office had to have known about it. I wonder if they think the story was falsified in any way.

http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/05/23 ... hampshire/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Results from latest CNN-WMUR Poll:
Romney 32%

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION is perhaps best stated by the Lord Himself: “I, the Lord, justify you and your brethren of my church in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land.” Also, latter-day prophets and apostles have minced no words regarding the responsibility of Latter-day Saints to befriend the Constitution, and to ensure that the inspired form of government God gave us remains intact. None was more outspoken than President David O. McKay, who on two occasions stated that “Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending th Constitution of the United States.” (October 1939 General Conference) And on a later occasion he stated: “I repeat that no greater responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this republic and of neighboring republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.” (April 1950 General Conference). Most recently, however, President Boyd Packer, speaking at the 2 June 2009 Provo, UT Freedom Festival, stated that “To honor the Constitution and to honor freedom is a sacred duty for all of us.”

I'm still waiting for Mitt Romney to acknowledge that responsibility. He could do so much toward awakening Latter-day Saints to their responsibility if he would lead the charge to restore constitutional principles to government and pledge to abide by the principles of the original Constitution. In the long run it would do so much more for Church members than his being President of the United States.

Lundbeck: IMO, there are many wolves in sheep's clothing in imporant places in the Church adm and perhaps even in the highest levels of the ecliastical organization. To think that Satan wouldn't do this to try to stop the 2nd Coming IMO is foolish and very naive.

Now if the PR Dept was ordered to do this by a GA, I say Katie bar the doors."

Janadell: So the FACT that Romeny has in effect denied God's visit to Joseph Smith and stated that the revealtion given to Joseph on plural marriage was probably the worse thing posssibilit, how do you rationalize this away? I'm stupified!!!!

I don't think Mitt holds a candle to Patrick Henry who said, "Give me liberty, or give me death."

Freedom fighter; How unfair. When asked about his intreptation abouyt whether a law/act was Constitutional, he said there are laywers to handle that. That really excited me because it was lawyers who saved the nephite nation from extinction. Oh wait, they were part of the Kingmen. Could Romney be the latter day version of the Kingmen?

lundbaek wrote:THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION is perhaps best stated by the Lord Himself: “I, the Lord, justify you and your brethren of my church in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land.” Also, latter-day prophets and apostles have minced no words regarding the responsibility of Latter-day Saints to befriend the Constitution, and to ensure that the inspired form of government God gave us remains intact. None was more outspoken than President David O. McKay, who on two occasions stated that “Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending th Constitution of the United States.” (October 1939 General Conference) And on a later occasion he stated: “I repeat that no greater responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this republic and of neighboring republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.” (April 1950 General Conference). Most recently, however, President Boyd Packer, speaking at the 2 June 2009 Provo, UT Freedom Festival, stated that “To honor the Constitution and to honor freedom is a sacred duty for all of us.”

I'm still waiting for Mitt Romney to acknowledge that responsibility. He could do so much toward awakening Latter-day Saints to their responsibility if he would lead the charge to restore constitutional principles to government and pledge to abide by the principles of the original Constitution. In the long run it would do so much more for Church members than his being President of the United States.

+100

Once people realize the enormity of the problem then their eyes are opened to what you are saying. We can't elect someone just because they are LDS. Just in the last few months have my eyes been opened. I was all gung ho for electing Mitt. After having read several talks by church leaders my paradigm was changed...and for the better. We have to have elected officials possessing the same mindset as our Founding Fathers. Too many socialistic programs have been set into play...and Americans like myself...thought it was normal.
President Benson said that if America falls, it will be because of Americans. Uninformed Americans, apathetic Americans, people here illegally that want us to think they are Americans and yet wave their own flag because they don't see what true America is all about. And we have a current President that would sell us down the river a the right price. I don't know about everyone else, but I've got my heavy duty rubber bands and U-shaped cut pieces of wire ready for action.

Freedom Fighter: Terrific that your eyes have been opened. There will many saints whose eyes will NOT be opened in time about Mitt. Unless of course they worship him.

Nice. Not only does Romney support taking my money to prop up the banking cartel, the military-industrial complex, and socialism-lite welfare programs, but he also supports giving it to the agri-industrial complex in the form of ethanol subsidies. Is there anything he wouldn't take my money to spend it on?

“I support the subsidy of ethanol,” [Romney] told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” Iowa leads the nation in the production of corn, a main source of ethanol.

I think we already knew he supported such corporate welfare; I mean, he needs to buy his votes! Nevermind the Constitution, that's irrelevant. He has a temple recommend - that's what's relevant!

Romney bets his candidacy on the economy
By Dan Balz, May 29,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... print.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BOSTON — Republican Mitt Romney will formally launch his second campaign for the White House on Thursday with an operation leaner and wiser than it was four years ago and a message singularly focused on what he sees as President Obama’s greatest area of vulnerability: jobs and the economy.

Romney and his advisers are working backward from November 2012. They believe that the economy will decide the outcome of the election and that the president has yet to convince voters that his economic policies have worked. They argue that Romney’s long experience in the private sector — his tenure as an elected official was just four years — makes him the Republican best positioned to challenge the president on how to fix what’s wrong.

“This election is going to be a referendum on President Obama and his handling of the economy,” said campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. “He didn’t cause the economic recession, but his policies have prolonged it and deepened it in some respects. We wondered what it would be like to elect a president who has no experience. Now we know.”

Democrats dispute all that and say Romney’s vulnerabilities on economic issues are far greater than the president’s. “The president made the hard choices, exercised sound judgment, and his policies are helping American industry give people jobs again,” said Democratic National Committee press secretary Hari Sevugan. “Mitt Romney made no choices, exercised bad judgment and has a record of helping big business take jobs away.”

Still, the president’s team has already shown it takes Romney’s candidacy seriously. The first video ad aired by a newly formed independent group that is run by two former White House officials targeted Romney.

When Chrysler paid back its government loan last week, a success for the president, the DNC blasted Romney for having opposed the auto bailout. Romney’s camp responded that he had favored a managed bankruptcy — a course they claim Obama eventually pursued. The argument is surely the first of many to come between the two camps.

The former Massachusetts governor begins as the front-runner for his party’s nomination, but hardly a prohibitive favorite. He narrowly leads the field in the latest Gallup poll, but the Gallup organization also called him “the weakest front-runner in any recent Republican nomination campaign.” He will be severely tested by his GOP rivals, who will all begin to target him.

Romney’s goal, according to advisers, is to keep his eyes on the bigger prize and to run his own race, not one dictated by the other GOP candidates or by the round-the-clock media culture. His hope is to convince Republican voters that, whatever flaws they may see in him, he is still the strongest candidate for the general election.

A series of interviews with Romney’s top advisers reinforced that message. “The economy is not just a talking point,” said campaign manager Matt Rhoades. “It’s the real deal. He [Obama] took his eye off the ball, doing all these other things. People are hurting out there. He’s the boss.”

Romney advisers see a disconnect between the president’s announcements of real progress on the economy at a time when there is, in the words of one, “a massive disaster out there with people’s lives.” They argue that, on economic issues, Obama still has trouble connecting with voters, particularly those from the white working class.

“He spent his entire political career running against Bush 43 [former president George W. Bush], crafting the argument, doing it better than anybody else,” said lead strategist Stuart Stevens. “And ever since that argument lost impact, he’s sort of been at sea.”

Connecting with working-class voters is a test Romney will have to prove he can pass. In polls of Republicans, he runs best among the college-educated and far less well among those without college degrees. Though he has shed his tie at many campaign appearances, he still retains more the look of the boardroom than the assembly line.

Romney believes his private-sector experience — only businessman Herman Cain in the GOP field can claim as much — will give him credibility on economic issues. “He can talk about it like [Arizona Sen. John] McCain [R] could about the military,” Stevens said. “You may not agree with him, but you don’t think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

Much about this Romney campaign is different from the first. The candidate started slowly and kept his head down through most of the spring. He has focused on raising money — a national call-day two weeks ago produced pledges for more than $10 million — as a way to remind opponents that he is prepared to go the distance, if necessary, to win.

His few public events have been devoted almost exclusively to the economy. Those events have drawn little national attention, which, for now, suits Romney’s team.

Four years ago, Romney’s advisers would read the morning headlines or watch news breaks on cable TV and ask themselves how they could get their candidate into those stories. They needed to boost Romney’s profile.

Today, their candidate is a known quantity. They mostly refuse, as one adviser put it, to “chase the tennis ball.” They prefer to jump in only when it suits the campaign’s overall message, as they did this month after Obama gave his Middle East speech. Romney said Obama had “thrown Israel under the bus.”

The Romney campaign has set up in the same office building, near Boston’s North End, that it used in 2008, but occupies far less space. The staff is smaller and more cohesive, the payroll is smaller, the number of consultants fewer and the strategy different. “If you’re going to run a message-driven campaign, which you’re allowed to do because of name ID this time, you can be a little leaner campaign,” Rhoades said.

Four years ago, Romney was more about process than message — gaming the early-voting states, running early ads to raise his profile and trying to convert that into credibility and support. Strategy became the message. This time, Romney hopes message becomes the strategy.

Four years ago, he made a bid for social conservatives that took him off his core strength — economic issues. His advisers say that won’t happen this time. They believe he has no need to re-litigate social issues and say he has found his comfort zone with the economy and with a campaign of a different style and pace. He is, said several advisers, “less frantic.”

The Romney team spends less time than in the past trying to anticipate what rivals will do or who they will be. “This go-round, it’s important not to think in those terms, not in terms of who’s getting in or out, which slice of the Republican Party we’re going to try to carve up,” said media adviser Russ Schriefer. “It’s much more about Mitt going out and talking about jobs and the economy and his experience and making his case.”

Calculations about this state or that state are being made when they have to be made. The decision to announce in New Hampshire on Thursday is a reminder of the critical importance that the Granite State plays in the team’s calculations. Beyond that, Romney’s advisers remain coy about just how they plan to navigate through Iowa or South Carolina, two states less hospitable than New Hampshire.

Many of Romney’s GOP rivals see the Massachusetts health-care plan, which included an individual mandate like the one in Obama’s plan, as a major vulnerability. Romney advisers know his rivals will try to beat him with it at every opportunity. Going forward, they will try to make the argument that all GOP candidates, including Romney, favor repealing Obama’s plan and that he has put out a proposal to replace it. No one knows if that gamble will work.

As for his refusal to apologize for the Massachusetts plan, they argue that Romney has shown conviction in the face of pressure to back off. That goes to the other issue that threatens Romney’s campaign — character. Four years ago, his rivals battered him as a flip-flopper. This year, they will question whether he does have the kind of core convictions his advisers claim. They will ask: Who is the real Romney?

How Romney handles that question may be his ultimate test. Here in Boston, the answer, repeatedly offered by his top advisers, is that the real Romney is the one who will stake his candidacy on the economy. They say that is the key to winning the nomination and the White House, and on that they sound defiant.

“To beat Romney,” Stevens said, “you’ve got to beat him on the economy.”