I Loved Mitt Romney's Speech, But...

MSNBC calls Mitt Romney's speech about his faith a "landmark speech". I absolutely agree. Even more than I am glad that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is being clarified in the public eye as the result of Romney's presidential candidacy, I am glad that religion is being talked about freely in the public square. I agreed with every statement in the entire speech. That is why it is a landmark speech to me and I hope to the rest of the country. Yet, Mitt Romney is not my preferred candidate for president, even though we share the same faith.

Mitt Romney made some profound statements in his speech. I agreed with every one. Some of, to me, the most impressive, are these:
  • God gave us liberty. We are all children of God.
  • Every faith draws its adherents closer to god. Commitment to love and serve one another is common to all religions.
  • He would put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the law.
  • His oath of office is his highest promise to God. He would serve no one group, religion, cause, or interest.
  • We should never jettison our beliefs to gain the world.
  • Jesus Christ is Son of God and Savior of mankind.
  • No candidate should be subject to a religious test, but that's what's occurring when a candidate is continually asked about his or her religion.
I particularly agreed with and cheered Romney's statement that "The new religion in America--secularism--is wrong." This, the secular religion, should the one thing that all other religions are united in faith against. But I feel as profoundly sure that Mitt Romney is not the best person to help America correct this problem and the other problems facing us.

The most (the only) troubling aspect of Romney's speech is that it was given at the George Bush Presidential Library. Haven't we had enough of Bushes and Clintons in the last 25 years?

Mitt Romney, in his political perspective, (even if he is no longer pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, and pro-gun control) is too much like the Bushes. And that troubles me. Just like the Bushes, Romney is cozy with the main problem with our country, the Council on Foreign Relations. The one common thread--the massive failure of our foreign policy and a part of the secular religion that Romney correctly decries--among the last several presidential administrations has been the Council on Foreign Relations.

Mitt Romney is a great man. But he would make only a good president. So I will not be supporting him, because there is one person in the presidential arena (and only one) that would be a great president. There is one candidate who clearly has no allegiance to the "Cancer" on Foreign Relations. That is why I am supporting Ron Paul.


  1. Thanks for the explanation, Frank. When Romney said there is no freedom without religion, I wondered if he wanted to put all the atheists in Guantanamo.

  2. When, in one of the Republican debates, he said that he wanted to build two (many?) Guantanamo's that was the straw for me that broke the camel's back.

  3. I love Romney for two words: Fiscal Responsibilty.

    He is the best candidate to drag this country out of a recession, a president that would focus on the GDP, a president with strong negotiating powers- and a savvy strong business history.

    With out money, our country is toast. I don't see any other candidate that can step up to the plate and make smart business decisions for the US.

  4. When I was a Mormon missionary, I learned when confronted by born-again Christians to focus on the absurdities of Jehovah's Witnesses. When dealing with J.W.'s I'd focus on the absurdities of Nicene Christianity.

    Mitt used the same tactic. in a clever way. Slam the secularists, atheists and non-religionists as a way of finding common ground with the religious right.

    Tacticly good politics but deceptive and divisive. Romney is obviously no JFK.

  5. I also don't think Mitt would make the best president. But since when have we had an opportunity to ultimately vote for a person that would make a great president? It is highly doubtful that your choice of candidates will be on the ballot in November (unless he defects to a third party again). If Mitt got the GOP nomination (which I think is unlikely), would you vote for him in November?

    I doubt either party will proffer us a great candidate next November. So I imagine I'll end up holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.

  6. My preferences after Ron Paul are Mike Huckabee, then Mitt Romney. If the Demo nominee is anyone other than Obama, I would definitely vote for Mitt if he were the Republican candidate. If the Demo were Obama, I'd have to think hard, but would probably lean toward Mitt.

    If the Republican nominee were Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain, I would begin my search for a 3rd party candidate.

  7. Frank, it was practiced, polished, and plastic.

    Mitt's speech was nothing more than predictable pandering.

    His first mistake was choosing to associate with the Republican Party. If he were a Democrat his religion would not be a problem at this stage of the game. He could also have been saved the embarrassment of flip-flopping on his true values.

    My question is this Frank, "How can any Temple recommend holding member of the LDS Church even associate with these pathetic warmongering, bathroom mating, family breaking, Veteran abandoning, middle-class murdering, LDS-hating members of the national GOP?

    Maybe those Utahns who cling to the notion that the GOP is the "One!" true Party will start to see through the BS when Mitt goes down in flames because he is not considered a Christian.

  8. It may have been predictable, but I don't think it was pandering. It was true stuff.

    I agree, though, that Mitt is associating himself with some questionable people--that was the main point of my article. I think, though, that you're making some pretty dangerous generalizations that because someone in a party is immoral, a liar, etc. that that makes the whole party bad.

    There are some pretty bad people in both parties, but one person who is not bad at all is Ron Paul.

  9. I agree with Salt H2O, in that Mitt would be an excellent candidate as far as fiscal responsibility. That's about where my support ends.

    I first started getting troubled about his realtions with the LDS church when the story broke about a deal in the works to use Deseret Book and BYU to help promote his campaign, it was denied but still didn't smell right.

    More recently I have been troubled to find that some of the negative stuff against Mitt because of his faith has orginated within his own camp. I just don't like all the sneaky games and tactics being played.

    Between Obama and Mitt, I might lean to Obama - at least then we would reasonably expect a leaning towards socialism. With Mitt we'd get it too, but he's claim he wasn't.

    Ultimately, Ron Paul is the only candidate I have seen that is in the presidency for the good of the country and taking an honest approach to it.

    Still think an Obama/Paul ticket would clean up - especially if neither get their parties nominations.

  10. "And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness ...." (D&C 82:22)

    A person that chooses to not be involved with "questionable people," as Frank calls them, chooses not to have much say in political matters. That's reality.

  11. The Cancer on Foreign Relations is far more than "questionable people", so perhaps I used the wrong term in my previous comment.

  12. I see Mitt being praised for fiscal responsibility, and I must say, I disagree.

    Our national budget is a much different beast from a venture firm or olympics commission.

    Tell me: name a single time that Mitt has discussed the Federal Reserve. Does he knows its history? Does he understand the true nature of inflation? Does he realized how entrenched private, central, fractional reserve banking is in our national government?

    Mitt may be praised as the many who "saved the day" for the SLC olympics, and who fixed his state's budget, but until he starts speaking out about the true economic and fiscal problems in this nation, I will oppose anybody who claims that his previous experience will make any difference in the White House.

    There are many more reasons why I'm against Mitt and for RP - see here: http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-im-for-ron-paul-and-against-mitt-romney

  13. Thanks Connor,

    The inability or lack of desire of nearly all candidates to deal with the problems caused by the American Establishment, such as the Federal Reserve, is one reason that Mitt Romney is not at the top of my list. That is why--as you agree--Ron Paul IS at the top of my list.

    Several of our country's problems are spiritual, but many others are political and economic. If we want to have a strong country, we need a leader that can champion the solutions to such problems. Ron Paul can do both.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog