May 30, 2007

The Romney Interview

blog radio

I just finished my one-on-one exclusive interview with Governor Mitt Romney as we traveled between campaign stops in West Des Moines. The weather turned poor and we battled road noise, but in 15 minutes, Romney gave an impressive performance as a man with a solid grasp on policy -- and of someone completely confident in his ability to master it.

This comes as no surprise, of course. Romney built a billion-dollar business, rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics, and won the governor's race in Massachussetts as a Republican. Someone with that kind of resumé could be forgiven a little cockiness, but Romney comes across as completely grounded and accessible, even in the tight confines of a minivan, talking with a citizen journalist.

I asked Governor Romney some tough questions regarding his immigration stance. Readers of Heading Right have already learned of Romney's specific issues with the current immigration proposal. When I asked him to reconcile his support of the 2006 McCain-Kennedy bill with his rejection of this year's proposal, he quickly corrected me and insisted he never endorsed last year's legislation. While he has been accurately quoted as calling its approach "reasonable", the same interview also has him refusing to endorse it. His staffers emphasized the point with me later.

I pressed him on his insistence on Z-visas being temporary, and he put me off by saying that he didn't want to write legislation as a candidate. He said that Congress should ensure that illegals do not get ahead of legal immigrant candidates, and that the proposed Z-visas do exactly that. It's fundamentally unfair, and it damages the prospects for legal immigration.

Mostly, though, I concentrated on foreign policy. This is an aspect of Romney's portfolio that hardly ever gets any serious attention, and I wanted to see how much depth Romney has in this area. I have to say, I'm impressed. Obviously the man knows global economics, but he actually placed that in a secondary position to security policy -- and he has a lot to say about that topic.

He has some fresh ideas about how to organize trade, security, and military organizations along vertical lines for each region. While a free-trader by nature, he also thinks that trade agreements should benefit all sides, and to the extent that agreements with China have damaged us, they need review and change. In this, he appears sympathetic to Duncan Hunter, whom I interviewed last month. He recognizes that we let Latin America slip away from us after the end of the Cold War, and he has some interesting ideas about how to win it back.

I will be airing the interview tomorrow on CQ Radio, which will be on the air at 2 pm CT. In the meantime, stick around for a special live broadcast of the town-hall forum here in West Des Moines, which starts at 6 pm CT. Don't miss this broadcast!


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (28)

Posted by onlineanalyst | May 30, 2007 7:07 PM

More and more I like a Fred Thompson- Mitt Romney ticket for the Republicans. The reversal or roles is acceptable, too.

Fresh faces, fresh ideas, appeal to common sense and solid American values, breadth of knowledge, executive skill, broad appeal geographically, fiscal accountability, strong sense of security first: these are winning attributes that would have the Democrats quaking.

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs | May 30, 2007 10:55 PM

Romney fascinates me. He seems to be the best choice for conservatives of the top 3, but I don't know if I trust his history of changed opinions. And Fred Thompson entering, Newt considering it, and Duncan Hunter gaining a little ground definately compicates things.

Posted by Neville72 | May 31, 2007 7:12 AM

Willard Romney's weird religion

What follows are some of the strange doctrines of Mormonism.

God was once a man - Brigham Young said, "If our Father and God should be disposed to wak through these aisles, we should not know Him from one of the congregation. You would see a man and that is all you would know about Him." (Journal of Discourse, Vol II, pg 40). Mormons belief that through faithfulness to the mormon doctrine they too may one day become gods with a planet of their own.

God the Father has many wives - God the Father, according to the "Pearl of Great Price" in "Abraham 3:9,16", is said to be living on a planet near the star Koleb with his wives having spiritual children.

Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer - according to this doctrine Jesus became the Savior because he came up with a better plan than Lucifer concerning how to get the people on earth to worship God (see The Kingdom of God, by Oscar McConkie Jr pg 46; Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses, 4:1-3).

Black-skinned people are of inferior origin - mormonism teaches that the spirit beings that did not fight valiantly for God come to earth as blacks, while those who fought valiantly come to earth as whites. Until very recently blacks could not become priests in the mormon system of worship for reasons related to this and other demeaning doctrines.

We are saved by grace, after we have done all we can - who is there that has done 'all they can' in following any given religious system? No one. This is a kind of double-speak. Mormonism is a system of religious works and merit from start to finish. It is all about earning merit and a state of worthiness by obedience to the mormon religious system.

I believe Willard Romney himself(not his shills, Hugh Hewitt et al) )should be called to expound on these rather strange ideas.

The vast majority of voters are not familiar with some of Mormonism's odder tenets. They're only familiar with the pleasant guys who ride their bicycles around and show up on your doorstep with little booklets.

Better to get them all out on the table now and have Romney explain them rather than have the MSM spring the oddest of them on an unsuspecting public in support of the Democrat nominee.

Posted by onlineanalyst | May 31, 2007 7:35 AM

I'm not about ready to impose a religious litmus test on Mitt Romney. He is running for the presidency, not for the head of a church-state.

If anyone can provide evidence that his religious beliefs have affected his governing or executive decisions, I have yet to see it.

Objecting to Romney's bid because of his religion plays into the script that the media have generated with its emphasis on his Mormonism. Such a manipulative ploy by the perception makers is intended to split Republican voters.

The media dropped Obama's faith history rather rapidly. Harry Reid's Mormonism never is part of the press kit when he spouts off.

Consider who is spinning the message to the public and what the purpose might be.

You will notice that the media never focus on the kinds of questions about policy that Captain Ed raises with Romney.

Posted by Neville72 | May 31, 2007 9:09 AM

"I'm not about ready to impose a religious litmus test on Mitt Romney. He is running for the presidency, not for the head of a church-state."

Ah but you're not the head of the Democrat party nor a member of their media allies.

Here's how it will play out in the unlikely event Willard Romney ends up the nominee.

Hillary, being the Democrat candidate, will be portrayed as an average orthodox Protestant while every "strange" idea of the Mormon faith will be presented with Romney's picture next to it.

Each strange idea presented will turn off a greater and greater number of Christian social conservatives who would otherwise support the Republican candidate. They're dispirited and just stay home.

It's an electoral disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by mchapman | May 31, 2007 9:13 AM

I have to clarify that the information posted by Neville72 regarding some of the beliefs of mormonism is not accurate. It is possible to take any christian religion and pull small excepts out of their teachings and then use them to create false pretenses about their beliefs. Some of the statements above are based on ideas from mormonism but are taken out of context while others are totally false, as in the claim about skin color inequality.
I would like to point out some key beliefs of mormonism that should be considered if Govenor Romney's religion must be considered.
- Jesus Christ is the saviour of the world and he died for us.
- Jesus atoned for our sins and it is only through him that we can return to heaven, regardless of what we do in this life
- Every person on this earth is a son or daughter of Heavenly Father and should be treated with equality and respect
- The best example of how to live ones life comes from the example of Jesus Christ as shown in the bible (which is scripture to mormons as well as other christians faiths).

For accurate information on mormonism go to and learn about the religion.

Posted by macfan1950 [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 31, 2007 9:50 AM

Focusing on any candidate's religion, especially calling the religious beliefs 'strange' is just adding fuel to the lefty's fire. It is a dangerous business that threatens to bring into question any of the religious people who believe in the miraculous. As far as I know, that's all of them. Let's not give the athiests out there reasons to make religion part of the political dialogue.

The best way to approach the issue is to look at the values the candidates espouse. Look for how they have lived their lives, look at how they have used their values to guide them in their leadership, look at their families, look at the charities they support, look at their community service, etc., etc.

Posted by Jettboy | May 31, 2007 10:06 AM

"Each strange idea presented will turn off a greater and greater number of Christian social conservatives who would otherwise support the Republican candidate. They're dispirited and just stay home.

It's an electoral disaster waiting to happen."

If that is what ends up happening, I say bring it on! They will end up dispirited by their own bigotry and deserve Hillary/Obama/whoever gets into office. As a conservative it will be sad for me, but my respect for fellow Republican conservatives has gone down hill since the degree of bigotry and self-centeredness has proven so deep.

I am not saying the liberal MSM have not been equally bigoted, but at least they are consistant is hating all forms of faith. With a large segment of the Republican conservatives, it is becoming more plain that they are not looking for a moral and ethical political nation with respect for the Constitution. They are proving (sadly) that the MSM might be correct that they are trying to create a theocratic (vs. simply religious)United States.

Posted by Kent | May 31, 2007 10:16 AM

Perhaps I shouldn't allow myself to be baited, but some of Neville72's claims about Mormon belief are simply untrue. I feel a need to respond, with the understanding that I speak according to my own knowledge and belief and not as any kind of official representative of the Mormon Church.

1. The notion that God was once a man is extracanonical in Mormonism. It's stated nowhere in Mormon scripture, and Brigham Young is not with us to explain what he meant by his remark. We do know that Christ did walk alongside two of His disciples following His Resurrection, on the road to Emmaus, without being seen as anything but another human traveller until they reached their destination.

There is a widespread belief in Mormonism that the Person of the Father once was incarnate (though not in this world), just as the Son was incarnate as Christ in this world. This is coupled with the speculation that God is a God of many Persons, rather than just the three Persons of the traditional Trinity, though we are commanded to worship only the Father in the name of the Son by the power of the Holy Ghost: All these Persons are one God, which God exists from all eternity to all eternity.

I am personally inclined to believe such speculation is on the right track. Among other things, it offers a solution to the cosmic problem in Christianity. But I am mindful that Gordon B. Hinckley, the current President of the Church, has reminded us that very little has been revealed on such matters (as pointed out, these speculations are not scriptural) and Mormons should be very cautious in their speculations.

1a. It's true that our scriptures declare that the faithful will become gods, with a small 'g'. Mormon theologians regard the capitalization as significant, a reminder that we will ever worship the Person of the Father in the name of Christ, no matter how much They choose to exalt the faithful.

One is reminded of the passage in Revelations where the four and twenty elders sit amidst God's Throne, crowned with gold, but still kneel before God and throw their crowns at His feet. It's a very good metaphor for what I believe the relation between the Father and the faithful will be like in the world to come.

Planets of our own? There's no mention of this anywhere in the Mormon canon. We do know that the New Testament declares that the faithful will be heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17) God's realm extends to all creation, so it can be argued (successfully, I think) that a single planet falls far short of what God has promised the faithful.

2. The claim that God the Father has many wives is not scriptural. Indeed, the claim that God the Father has any wife, that there is a Heavenly Mother, is extracanonical. It is another speculation, one mentioned in one of our hymns and one I am inclined to believe, but nothing definitive has been revealed on the subject. If it is true, then this Heavenly Mother is simply another Person in whom God is manifest, and a Person we are not commanded to study and are forbidden to independently worship.

Abraham 3:9: "And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one a planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same border as that upon which thou standest. "

Abraham 3:16: "If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore bKolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me."

Kolob is mentioned and described as being nigh to God's Throne. Weird? Yes. Like most of the book of Revelations, it's one of those things I just have to put on the shelf for now, and hope I understand better later. But there's no mention of God living on a planet of Kolob, contrary to claim. No is there any mention of wives or children, either in these two verses or the ones between and around them (which I omit because I know I'm already posting a rather long response.)

3. All God's children are brethren. This does not make them equal. Satan was once Lucifer, a son of the morning, as stated in the New Testament; but he was never the equal of Christ, nor is he depicted as such in Mormon scripture.

The relevant scripture on the primordial contest between Christ and Satan before God's Throne is Moses 4:1-2:

"And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. "

This clearly shows, first, that Satan was never the equal of Christ, though he tried to displace Him; and, second, that what Christ advocated was the Father's Will, not His own plan. It's the familiar Biblical story of Satan rebelling against God. God revealed His Will through his Son, then Satan rebelliously proposed his own idea. This led to the war in Heaven, mentioned in Revelations and dramatized by the poetry of Milton.

The part about Moses commanding Satan in the name of Christ is a reference to an earlier story about Satan trying to terrorize Moses into worshipping Satan, and Moses commanding Satan in Christ's name to depart. In other words, it's very like the New Testament story of Christ's disciples casting out devils:

Luke 10:17: "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."

4. Sadly, Mormonism did deny the Priesthood to blacks for most of its history. I don't know why God permitted this, any more than I know why He forbade any but Levites to join the Priesthood in the Old Testament dispensation. Again, sadly, many Mormons, including prominent leaders, speculated that the reason was a basic spiritual inferiority of blacks, going back to before this world. I don't believe that myself but I can't deny that many other Mormons have. Like the problem of evil, it's a test of my faith.

And I wonder if that doesn't point to God's purpose. By 1978, the leaders of the Church were deeply embarrassed by the ban and wanted it lifted, and pleaded with God to reveal His Will in the matter. Once they believed His Will had in fact been revealed, the reversal in Church policy was prompt and complete. Racist speculations purporting to explain the ban pretty much ended up on the ash heap. The experience was arguably an effective way to purge the Church of racism -- demonstrably much more effective than affirmative action ever has been.

Of course, now I'm speculating about God's purposes.

5. The correct quote, from 2 Nephi 25:23, is: "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

The meaning is clear and twofold: In the end, our works are never sufficient to save us, and we are completely dependent on the grace of Christ; but we are nonetheless commanded to do as much as we can. And, yes, that means participating as fully as possible in the Mormon system of ordinances, commandments, and worship. Of course, you are perfectly right that none of us, not one, will do "all we can;" that's where the grace comes in.


James 2:20-24: "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Christians can and have disagreed among themselves about the soterial roles of faith and works, though I know of none that deny the primacy of grace; but, given these verses from the traditional New Testament canon, it is hardly out of the mainstream to suggest that the doctrine of salvation by faith alone is mistaken. I think my Catholic friends, and many of my Protestant friends, would agree.


What's with "Willard Romney?" He goes by Mitt.

And what's with "shills?" Is every supporter of a candidate a "shill," or only supporters of candidates you don't like?

I see no reason why Romney should be required to expound on Mormon theology during a political campaign. I believe the civic conduct of Mormons generally, and the personal conduct and character of Romney, ought to provide sufficient basis for non-Mormons to put aside the "Mormon question" as irrelevant to this campaign. They should no more hesitate to vote for a Mormon, just because he's a Mormon, than any of us should hesitate to vote for a Jew, just because he's a Jew.

I do think Romney should be expected to explain and defend his change of heart on abortion and gun control. That's a very different matter.

Posted by Lowell Brown | May 31, 2007 10:35 AM

No presidential candidate has ever discussed his religious beliefs. To require that of Romney would set a terrible precedent that could come back to bite any candidate of faith and his/her supporters. Shameless self-promotion: I co-author a blog, Article VI Blog, that explores the intersection of religious faith and the 2008 elections. I am a Mormon and my co-blogger is an Evangelical Christian. Come check us out some time:

Posted by MA Voter | May 31, 2007 1:31 PM

I voted for Willard M. Romney in his last race. For a year or two it looked like a good idea too. I don't give two hoots about his religon, it's not a factor. What I liked in particular were his positions on the Environmental Issues. But like the much publicized switches on Abortion and Gun Laws, he sold us out for Political Expediency.

If Romney is saying anything you like just be aware that it is all subject to change at the drop of a hat. All of it. I don't see how anybody can be comfortable with this guy, he will sell out anybody, anytime, anywhere, if he thinks it will help him.

He doesn't exactly have the market cornered here, all the Candidates do it. But he does it much more often, and he is too damn comfortable doing it. Downright Sociopathic in some ways, or maybe comparing him to Seinfeld's George Costanza ("remember, it's not a lie if you truly believe it") would be nicer.

McCain is pretty similiar, except that once upon a time he had a core belief system. Willard M. Romney never did.

Posted by Tony Colindres | May 31, 2007 4:23 PM

In the language used by Rudy Giuliani to Ron Paul, I must refute the comments made by Neville72 about Mormons as totally absurd. And you do not label any religion or religious creed as "strange" and "weird" either. That was a sad note indeed. Let's leave negativity to the liberal media. Republicans are known for being positive and for doing what matters most. Let's focus on Mitt Romney's extraordinary achievements as an individual, family man, business executive, public official, and an averall leader and let's examine whether those traits will help our nation come afloat from her present difficult situation. Now, that matters. In my opinion, Governor Romney has the ability, the skill, the leadership, and the sound values to bring up our nation on the safe course. Let's give him a fair chance. Let's drop the "religion" deal aside and leave it to the liberal media.

Posted by Neville72 | May 31, 2007 4:46 PM

" And you do not label any religion or religious creed as "strange" and "weird" either."

I'll label it whatever I wish, thank you very much.

Romney's got two anchors on him that would spell sure electoral defeat---a defeat we can't afford at this time in history. (1) the weirdness of his religion which will be played up big time by the Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media. (2) his embarrassing and well documented record of flip-flops on core issues(abortions and guns).

Both will be endless lampooned by Democrats will the abetting of the media.

Either one is enough to sink Romney were he to be the candidate.

Good thing Fred Dalton Thompson will step up to the plate.

Posted by Tony | May 31, 2007 5:34 PM

Neville72. Obviously, you insist on being (or playing) negative. A very brilliant (although for "some" also wierd looking) Albert Einstein said that everyhting is relative. "Weird" or "normal" is all in your head. Nothing is absolute. Even God changed his mind more than once. God said to Abraham to kill his son Isaac as a sacrifice to Him. He later changed his mind and let Isaac live. Many years later he told Moses to perform divorces among the Israelites even though he said to Adam and the holy patriarchs that marriage was forever... I can go on and on ... Does that make God a flip-flopper? I don't think so. You be positive. It's a good thing. Also, not that I care but I heard that Fred Thompson has been married three times. Is he a flip-flopper to his previous wives? Hopefully, that won't be a problem for him. Have you ever been married? To me, marriage is a most solemn sacred thing. A matter of principle and love both, for always. Have a good afternoon Neville72.

Posted by SlickWilly3333 | May 31, 2007 6:08 PM

I disagree Neville. I think both "anchors" are superficial and will not be a significant issue as time goes on.

1. Religion: The people who hate Mormons the most are liberals. They hate them for the same reason they hate Evangelicals -- pro-choice and no gay marriage. Obviously, liberals will never vote for a conservative. Evangelicals may think his religion is weird, but his values will win out. He's been faithful to his wife, has been a good father and is incredibly accomplished and competent.

2. Flip-flop: This claim is the most inflated critizism in politics today. Since Kerry, liberals stamp anyone who changes his/her mind on anything as a flip-flopper. It's an inaccurate charge in this case. Kerry was on exactly opposite sides of the same issues. Mitt has flipped only on one issue one time.

Abortion: flipped, just as Reagan and H.W. did.
Guns: always for 2nd Amendment; always against assault rifles.
Gays: Equal rights = Yes; Re-defining marriage = No

I think Romney's a man of integrity. I think his marriage and family are strong evidence of this. Also, if you don't believe he's been on the conservative side of the issues until lately, just google the flyer from his 1994 campaign v. Kennedy. The only thing they agreed on was abortion in 1994.

Posted by bricklavin | May 31, 2007 6:47 PM

Neville72 articulates what I believe is the position held by many a Fred Dalton Thompson supporter (make sure you include all three names when you refer to the Great Conservative Messiah, mind you).

Despite the fact that by an objective account Romney has more competence, more brains, stronger achievements, a better resume, a MUCH cleaner personal life, fewer (if any ) skeletons, better looks, demonstrated leadership ability, rock-solid executive experience, a clean bill of health, and the list goes on, Fred Dalton Thompson sheep cannot possibly stomach, let alone embrace the idea of Romney as the nominee because

1) He is Mormon and a vast library of evangelical literature assures us that Mormonism is an evil cult full of strange, yea, evil doctrines.

2) The "liberal" press will have a heyday with his religion and convince all right thinking Christians that a President Romney would brainwash us all and doom the country to Mormonish hell. Therefore, supporting Romney would be a waste of time because the voting public cannot be trusted to think for itself and vote sanely.

3) He is a flip-flopper, not because he changed his position once on abortion, or moved slightly right on gun control, but because he has flip-flopped on every issue imaginable . . . the Fred Dalton Thompson supporter then proceeds to rail off every sophistric lie the MSM feeds, without giving a second thought to intellectual honesty on the matter.

The most savvy Fred Dalton Thompson supporter publicly expresses reason 3 only, fully aware of the unsavory nature of voicing the internally held beliefs described in arguments 1 and 2.

The less savvy might use the 2nd argument but rush to piously declare that they are above such bigotry, despite the foibles of their brethren.

And then, there are the Neville72's of the world, who scarcely bother to hide their misinformed, frothy disdain of Mormonism and, by implication, Romney, such that the thickheaded bigotry oozes clean through.

Indeed, Fred Dalton Thompson must be the best GOP candidate because he says all the right things in a folksy way, blogs on Redstate, and drives a red pickup truck. It has nothing to do with the empty minded mistrust of a far more qualifed and competent alternative.

Posted by Ron | June 2, 2007 1:07 AM

Fred Dalton Thompson for president? Give me a break! Study his record. He was a do nothing senator. He used to be pro-abortion, so if Mitty went flippy, so did Freddy...

He is an actor, for crying out loud--a professional move he made after he was too LAZY to do anything of substance in the senate. At least Ronald Reagan had the good sense to be a governor first, and actually learn how to run a governmental entity bigger than a senate office...

And for the so called evangelicals who look to him as a savior, he divorced his first wife, womanized for years, and then married a much younger woman. Sounds really Christian like to me... Contrast that with Mitt Romney--he's been married to the same woman, in fidelity, for 38 years.

So people, let's get past your uniformed bigotry, and vote for the man, Mitt Romney, who really does share your values.

Posted by Dan | June 2, 2007 8:55 PM

I am an ardent supporter of Mitt Romney for what he stands for, for what he has accomplished and for what he can bring to the office of the President of the United States. He is a man of faith as are many of the candidates which I deeply respect. As a member of the LDS faith (Mormon) I am used to the fanatically blind, uninformed and often mean spirited bigotry of many who attack my faith. No amount of reason or logic will sway them. It is like trying to reason with someone who is drunk. There is no purpose. I have many dedicated Christian friends who in practicing the compassion and loving doctrines of Jesus Christ would never debase my fatih. Instead we celebrate that which we have in common which is the fundamental teachings of Christ, to honor the family, to live honestly, to love and serve others, to live morally, to be good husbands/wives, fathers/mothers and citizens. Dissension about tennants of faith has caused and is the cause of countless wars (Sunni versus Shiite anyone?). It was once said about Christianity that it's greatest power to change the hearts of the world would come when Christians begin to live as the Master taught. It is time to come together as a Chrisitan, Jewish, Muslim communities to find common ground for peace and to celebrate our commonality and shared values. Let's not let religious ignorance, bigotry and hatred be a part of our dicussions.

Posted by Robin Spencer | June 3, 2007 2:32 AM

My main complaint with Thompson is that by "waiting" to declare candidancy he has been able to avoid public scrutiny and any chance of misstep in early debates the other candidates have taken. Naturally, he will also miss the coming debate on Tuesday. How very easy to keep himself safe by sitting back and letting others do the real work. Besides, any candidate that has to be pushed and dragged into running for president (as he would have us believe happened to him) is not the person I want leading my country. It's safety-net political maneuvering, nothing more. I want someone who is ready to stand up to the plate and take any pitches thrown at him. That would be Mitt Romney, by the way. And he just keeps knockin' em out of the ballpark.

Posted by Robin Spencer | June 3, 2007 2:33 AM

My main complaint with Thompson is that by "waiting" to declare candidancy he has been able to avoid public scrutiny and any chance of misstep in early debates the other candidates have taken. Naturally, he will also miss the coming debate on Tuesday. How very easy to keep himself safe by sitting back and letting others do the real work. Besides, any candidate that has to be pushed and dragged into running for president (as he would have us believe happened to him) is not the person I want leading my country. It's safety-net political maneuvering, nothing more. I want someone who is ready to stand up to the plate and take any pitches thrown at him. That would be Mitt Romney, by the way. And he just keeps knockin' em out of the ballpark.

Posted by TheEruditeEarlobe | June 7, 2007 9:17 PM

There are a lot of so-called evangelical/charismatics who think that dour Fred Dalton Thompson would be the savoir of the GOP. Hardly anything comes closer to the truth. He was a lazy senator, a lazy husband, and an actor who had his cue cards near him so that he won't miss his lines. Furthermore, he is not anything like Ronald Reagan. He gave the US Senate because he was too bored, and would he do the same thing as a potential President. His record is clear...he would be a do-nothing candidate that would get destroyed by the Billary/Howard Wolfson/James Carville/Paul Begala/MSM machine.

Stop the religious bigotry all you choir-swaying, head-thumping, snake-charming, hooping and hollerin' holy-rollers who profess to claim the source of religious liturgy, Biblical origins or even what makes a Christian.

VOTE FOR MITT: He has the smarts, the good breeding, the excellent demeanor, patrician good looks, and general savvy needed to face idiots like Hugo Chavez or Ahmedinajad.

Posted by Hava | June 9, 2007 5:12 PM

You want strange beliefs? How about believing that some guy gathered up two of every kind of animal on the earth, and put them all on one ship, and lived on that ship with the animals for over a year?

Or the man who was swallowed by a whale, lived in the whale's stomach for a few days, and then was spit back out?

Or how about the guy who died and then raised himself from the dead three days later?

Truly, if you look objectively at the beliefs held by the Christian religion, they are just as "strange" as the beliefs held by the Mormon Church. When Christians start saying, "We could never vote for Mitt because he's one of those strange Mormons," then the liberal media starts rubbing their hands together with glee. To many liberals and atheists, there is only a paper-widths difference between a Mormon and an Evangelical Christian. When there is bigotry between Evan. Christians and Mormons, it only backfires on the bigot because the same standard of, "That sounds so weird!" are applied to the bigot too, and they end up sounding like an idiot.

We must be willing to lay aside theological differences in a political race. They don't belong.

Back on track here: Ed, I listened to your interview with Mitt, and it was very impressive. I have since signed up to have your podcasts downloaded automatically to my iTunes because I think you do a great job, and I love to hear the shows. Keep up the great work, and maybe sometime I'll actually remember to listen live (instead of the downloaded version later) so I can call in and comment. ;-)

Have a wonderful day,


Posted by Jan | June 10, 2007 11:00 PM

This was the funnest thing I have done in a long time to read such crazy thoughts on Mormons ... Who cares? At least Mitt Romney is honorable like MOST LDS people are (theres always a bad egg in every group, work or religion). I would vote for him in a second, just because he IS Mormon.

Posted by mungagungadin | June 11, 2007 2:53 AM

Neville72 and every other bigot:

I guess I'm tired of hearing questions about Romney's faith. Every faith has some fun facts, including transubstantiation and Martin Luther's solemnization of a polygamist marriage. Tell me why protestants and catholics and evangelicals and "christians" in general insist on creating a DHIMMI class for Mormons?

SHUT THE F* UP. EVALUATE ROMNEY on his MERITS just like you would wish.

Posted by Micah | June 11, 2007 12:19 PM

Let’s put the stones down. It amazes me as I've watched people react to Mitt Romney running for office. There is not a finer group of people than the Mormons. There standards of morality and honesty make up their moral character. You might not fully be converted to their doctrine and that’s ok- Romney doesn’t ask you to be. The bottom line is that Romney has tremendous character and is willing to do what is right for the country. Now we can throw stones at Romney and attack the man’s beliefs all day but it will only make you less of an individual. Your bigotry makes you look like wolves dressed up in sheep’s clothing.

Posted by Trish23 | June 11, 2007 3:10 PM

Well said Micah.

Posted by Eric | June 12, 2007 1:36 AM

I just donated to Mitt's campaign. I've read his recent article and I'm convinced there is no one above him out there. I mean, look, he's sharp, dynamic, inspirational and definitely extremely knowledgeable. I'm 31 and I don't really care about his so called flip-flop(s) in the 1990's and his Mormonism...It's inconsequential to me. He's working hard and super serious. Oh by the way, forget those CNN 'debates'. I do like Fred Thompson as well from what little I've seen, but for me it's Mitt all the way.

Posted by ken | June 14, 2007 5:18 PM


You belong in the Middle East where religion controls everything - culture, economics and politics. If I look at Romney’s accomplishments, and his spirit of volunteerism - his time as the Olympics CEO (no pay) then as governor (no pay) and now promises to donate his salary if elected president, as well as a great individual with a wonderful model family; those are hardly fruits of a evil cult, are they? So stop your stinky bigotry! The most competent candidate is ROMNEY!

And to bricklavin:

“Indeed, Fred Dalton Thompson must be the best GOP candidate because he SAYS all the right things....” -

That’s the difference between Romney and Thompson as well as all other candidates. Thompson is all talk (re: “says all the right things), he’s not a doer; he’s lazy, according to some testimonies of those who knew him well. Romney, on yhe other had is a Doer!- a get-it-done person....what other candidate in the race (both Republican and Democrat) has RUN, MANAGED, OVERSEEN any major undertaking besides Romney? He has the most executive experience of any one!!!! He also has a great business management background which Washington desperately needs.