Is flip-flopping critique of Romney a cover for anti-Mormon feelings?

This is a very intelligent observation. Of course it is not universal as the writer states, It is only referring to people who don't want to vote for a Mormon and who believe those issues to be of concern. Because there even Mormons who don't like his flip flopping and would rather choose a democrat or other republican candidate. I am one of them.

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!

Why do you think Obama lost by such a margin?!? All the independents thought an Obama victory was in the bag so they went to vote for McCain!

If anyone actually LOOKS, and LOOKS HARD AND TRUTHFULLY, at Romney's past they will see that most of the labels are spawned by the same simplemindedness that has so many conservatives thinking Al Gore claimed to invent the internet.

Read the book "A Mormon In The Whitehouse" by Hugh Hewitt if you want to see the nuance and the TRUTH.

This is America. Its OK for an evagelical or a southern baptist to not vote for someone because of their Mormon religion. But they should at least be honest about it. Hiding behind the skirt of the flip-flop excuse points specifically to what I have been saying all along: evangelicals and souther baptists can not and will not think for themselves. They are simple minded and bigoted. This group does not have the spiritual courage or mental fortitude to vote for the candidate that will be the best president for our country today. Instead they rely on who their minister or pastor has demanded that they vote for. And they do it with blind obedience. They are the true sheep of this world. Being led by guitar playing pastors who mingle scripture with the philosophies of men. So, please drop the flip flop speak and recognize your bigotry for what it is. This is America, afterall.

OF PHARISEES & SADDUCEES

Of course, in NH where Hillary prevailed (as I believe 'Ethan' in his post is talking about), when Obama was projected to win, it was cross-over liberals who thought Obama "had it in the bag" (no drug connotation here) and went to vote against Mitt the Mormon by voting for McCain, so a Mormon wouldn't come out on top.

But, in NH, it is likely that not too many of those cross-overs (or at least, not anywhere near as in Iowa, and as one expects to see Saturday in South Carolina, it were the liberals (Sadducees - the liberal left) who said "nix" to Mitt the Mormon. In Iowa & SC, one expects it was (and will be) the Pharisees (on the right - evangelicals, and also other 'traditional Christians') who will vote against Mitt the Mormon by voting for either Huckabee or McCain.

The anti-Mormon issue has been called, essentially, a non-issue by Romney and his campaign. Of course, what else can they say. It is politically expedient to say that. To do otherwise would be political suicide. (Just as for a business, or business person can never say that his/her customer is wrong, even if/when they are—a candidate and/or his campaign cannot say that their constituency is or may be biased against them, even if they are). A big part of politicking is to offend the least number of people you can, while pleasing as many as you can.

McCain and ALL of the candidates do this, with the possible exceptions (to just a lesser degree) as Ron Paul—though he is ultimately unelectable and/or just wrong on many of his issues -- though NOT necessarily on all.

I would argue that Mitt the Mormon made Mike (Huckabee) a contender. Huck the Preacher was a "safe haven" for voters in Iowa to run to, as they were running away from Mitt the Mormon, as he was cast in whisper, wink and 'word' campaigns (did anyone mention that Mitt is a 'Mormon')??? (Yes, a few bazillion times over, as if 'Mormonism' is a growth, a pock or a cultic cancer or something)!!!

Mitt also helped McCain rise in secularist Sadducean New Hampshire. Sure, John McCain had a name and a fame before Mitt Romney. But neither Mike or Mac are conservatives in practice.

And though Mitt has had to pander to the secular Sadducees in Massachussetts to get into office (so he has not always "talked the talk" of a conservative), yet, in his personal life, as well as in his personal and public examples (outside of what he has sometimes said), he has, nonetheless, otherwise, "walked the walk".

Dress like a slut, Ann Coulter, was "dead on" in her "Elephant in the Room" piece regarding Mitt, Mac & Mike recently.

—diligentdave

No, its not, Its a critique of his flip flopping and crappy record.

Apparently, the full truth is too controversial, since an extended comment I made was not added to those above.

Romney campaigned in MA aligning himself by making statements supporting gay marriage, and aligned himself with the Pro Choice movement, This allowed him to become the republican to take on a Kennedy for Senator and although defeated he won the race for Governor. Now as he has to appeal to a wider electorate, he has come out with a more conservative view on these issues to appeal to what his campaign feels is a conservative majority. Flip-flopper... no... just a flipper, no flopping yet....

As a member of the LDS Church and a worker with the Commonwealth, I have a lot of opportunities to hear about our religion and how his staff and CW appointees discussed his run for the Whitehouse months after being elected Governor. I have heard how he and his people wanted to turn MA around quickly and there are scars left in that effort. I wish he had stayed here another term to maybe heal some of those scars and see his vision work.

He has turned around businesses and the Olympics in a few years and saved them from closing down. But a government in the US will most likely just continue operating... and maybe that is not in his blood to wait and make long term change. His presidential candidacy would be more creditable and the flipping on these issues would have been absorbed with more time as Governor. I think it was a risky political decision to focus on the Whitehouse instead of re-election here in MA another one or two terms.

I think he is a nobel man, and talented businessman. But I have seen greater republican government leaders make programs of change that work over the long haul. Nixon's domestice and foreign policies were effectively moderate and are still being discussed today.

When all said and done in his campaign, I have enjoyed many opportunities to talk about my religious beliefs because of his run for the Whitehouse. And his family are stellar examples of our faith.

But I don't agree that all the flip-flopping comments are purely based on religion. There is open evidence that he flipped on the gay marriage and pro-choice alignment to enjoy his Camelot months here in MA.

CraigInBoston

Romney has not changed on positions more than Reagan, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson or Clinton.
His experience equips him to be an effective leader. I hope he wins in Florida.

This is what is so frustrating to me. If Romney were, say, a Methodist or a Presbyterian people would look at his background, his family, and his record and would vote for him in a New York minute. He'd be winning by a landslide.

We haven't had a candidate with this much experience, intelligence, and ability in a very long time.

But the irony of the matter here is that there is nothing to fear from having a Mormon in the White House. There were no mass conversions of people in Massachusetts while he was governor. No daily radio readings of the Book of Mormon. No church pamphlets being passed out in the schools. No evidence that Romney was controlled by the President of the Mormon religion.

Mormons have successfully voted for Methodists and Baptists and Catholics and so on and so forth for years and years and it didn't seem to trouble them. If there is one state that can always be counted on for the conservative cause it's Utah.

And the most ironic thing about this is that there isn't a bigger flip-flopper out there than McCain. McCain was pro-amnesty and is now against amnesty. He was not for securing the border first but now that he's running for president he's conveniently "heard the voice of the people." He was so against the Bush tax cuts that he voted against them but now he wants us to believe that he thinks it's important to keep them in place.

But I guess since McCain hasn't committed the heinous crime of being a Mormon it's all good to flip and flop like a fish on the beach gasping his last breath.

Along with the argument you make above, I am still waiting to see what "other" issues aside from abortion has Romney flip-flopped on? I keep hearing many talk about this, but I can't seem to find anywhere else that he's flip-flopped.

As stated above, many candidates have flip-flopped on many issues - this is nothing new. In addition, Romney has explained clearly why he changed his views on abortion - it had to deal with stem-cell research, which was not present at the time he originally voted for abortion.

Right on! Obama has flip flopped on at least 6 important issues the past few years as well as Clinton and most all the GOP contenders. Thank you, thank you very much!

Mitt for Prez!

What about McCains recent flip flop on taxes. He's not refered to as a flip flopper.

I never thought I could ever have a reason to vote for Hillary Clinton, but I can never vote for anyone who bashes my religion such as Huckabe, McCain and Hunter. Senator Clinton is looking better every day.

Can you imagine a Republican victory in November without Idaho, Utah, Nevada and Arizona. Mormons will not vote for any of these bigots and that could easily swing these states to the Dems.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This article http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the New Testament than any other denomination. For example, Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

One Baptist blogger stated “99 percent of the members of his Baptist church believe in the Mormon (and Early Christian) view of the Trinity. It is the preachers who insist on the Nicene Creed definition.” It seems to me the reason the pastors denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their flock (and their livelihood).

Quite frankly, I'm sick of labels: Conservative, liberal, white, black, Mormon, Jew, flip-flopper, etc. Labels are simple-minded and devious people's way of shutting down our brains to rational thinking. As if "Oh, he or she is a conservative” tells sums a person up so completely that we need not think any further past the statement.

Ah, what a nice way to live in this complicated world. I think I will label everything. I'll start calling the media "egos with pens." Perhaps I'll call Huckabee "hypocrite on a stich." Yah, that's right a stich--he's glib little one-liners he's so famous for. As for the hypocrisy, while he purports to take the moral high ground, he throws under the belt moves—lets show the ad I'm not going to show and let Norris pull the punches on McCain so I can stand smiling at the side and then like a good "Christian" talk up McCain. However, if having someone labeled a Christian lets a certain set of the population feel better about voting for him, then so be it regardless of the fact his actions, from the beginning, reek of hypocrisy of biblical proportions.

If anyone wants to use a brain and look past these labels, they'll see a very different picture on every candidate or for that matter every person, ethnicity, religion and even political party. Or, we can just let others do the thinking for us like we have done for the past several years and wind up in this stupid mess we are in where we've pitted our Congress like some football team of Dems and Republicans who think that the only way for their party to win is for the other one to lose.

Dems aren't always the champions of minorities anymore than Republicans are the champions for less government interference. We don't have to hate a president because we are not of his party nor overlook his faults because we are.

It's time we all drop the labels and use our brains. I for one would like to see both parties disappear or at the least, the emergence of a strong third so we are actually required to investigate who and what each candidate really is. I'd also like to see the media do their jobs like they should and not use the kitschy little labels that the PR pros spin out for them.

what i see is where the democrats are flip flopping at each makes me wonder what the hell is wrong them and as for Mitt Romney ...he's the one i like alot better than the rest of the republicans and the democrats .... hey ! as a democrat i ain't voting for the donkey ..i'll go with MITT ROMNEY !!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite frankly, I'm sick of labels. Conservative, liberal, white, black, Mormon, Jew, flip-flopper, etc. Labels are simple-minded and devious people's way of shutting down our brains to rational thinking. As if "Oh, he or she is a conservative” tells sums a person up so completely that we need not think any further past the statement.

Ah, what a nice way to live in this complicated world. I think I will label everything. I'll start calling the media "egos with pens." Perhaps I'll call Huckabee "hypocrite on a stich." Yah, that's right a stich--he's glib little one-liners he's so famous for. As for the hypocrisy, while he purports to take the moral high ground, he throws under the belt moves—lets show the ad I'm not going to show and let Norris pull the punches on McCain so I can stand smiling at the side and then like a good "Christian" talk up McCain. However, if having someone labeled a Christian lets a certain set of the population feel better about voting for him, then so be it regardless of the fact his actions, from the beginning, reek of hypocrisy of biblical proportions.

If anyone wants to use a brain and look past these labels, they'll see a very different picture on every candidate or for that matter every person, ethnicity, religion and even political party. Or, we can just let others do the thinking for us like we have done for the past several years and wind up in this stupid mess we are in where we've pitted our Congress like some football team of Dems and Republicans who think that the only way for their party to win is for the other one to lose.

Dems aren't always the champions of minorities anymore than Republicans are the champions for less government interference. We don't have to hate a president because we are not of his party nor overlook his faults because we are.

It's time we all drop the labels and use our brains. I for one would like to see both parties disappear or at the least, the emergence of a strong third so we are actually required to investigate who and what each candidate really is. I'd also like to see the media do their jobs like they should and not use the kitschy little labels that the PR pros spin out for them.

I think you hit the nail on the head...I have always wondered why it was only Romney that was given this label of 'flip-flopper' when each candidate on both sides has changed his/her opinion on many issues. I think that it is a good thing to allow your beliefs to evolve and not get stuck in the mire on some of the issues we face. If a candidate can validate why and when he/she changed their mind on an issue, it is credible. But those who change their mind just to try to please a particular group is not credible. I believe Romney is credible and I support him for president. He is the best qualified to lead our country with true leadership and real experience.

Yes I would not vote for Mr Romney for the same reason I would not vote for a Muslim These two religions are man made, they believe in another god, certainly not the God of the Bible
I can document that mormonism has no foundation, and if any. It is based on a sham.

The thing that always seems to baffle me is the amount of people who dislike members of the Mormon faith. it is really easy to dismiss something that you do not fully understand by claiming they are a cult or non-Christian. When did politics become more about the church one attends and less about their political record? People who vote based on a candidate's skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith have strange priorities.

I am so impressed with Mitt Romney, his wife and his sons and their families. They are the all American family. He will be the leader we have needed for a long, long time. He has the knowledge and ability to lead us in the right direction economically as well as fixing the problems of health care (heaven help us if Hillary gets in and we have socialized medicine!), secure our borders, and bring back "English" as our official language. He is a very able, capable man of integrity and presidential in every way. I think he was born to lead our country and extremely capable. He and his family would bring honor to the White House and the United States of America.

It occurs to me that in order to "flip flop" one would have to CHANGE his position 2 times. You would have a position, and then you would have to flip, and then you would have to flop.

Romney has changed his position on abortion one time, but not in the way most are implying. In his personal life and his religious life, Romney has been consistently against abortion where the life of the mother is not threatened. What he changed was not his personal position, and not his religious position. What he changed was whether his personal position should be imposed on others.

For example, Romney's religion tells him he should not drink alcoholic beverages. He, however, does not believe he should impose that belief on others. To be against something is a different decision than whether to impose that position on others.

The people who criticize him for changing his position make it sound like he was personally in favor of abortion and is now against abortion in order to gain political favor with evangelical Christians. This is simply not true. His core personal and religious beliefs are against abortion.

Romney's position on homosexuals was essentially that he would make no changes in Massachusetts in that area. By not changing anything, he prevented changes that would have been favorable to the homosexual lobby. He, apparently, decided that, by compromise, he could do more good than he could by using an all or nothing approach. I find this very similar to Guiliani's current pledges on conservative judiciary and abortion that appear to differ from his personal preferences.

The so-called "flip-flopping" of Mitt Romney is a typical liberal ploy of Democrats and evangelicals to vent their visceral dislike of Romney simply because he is a Mormon. The excuse is that they don't understand Mormonism. (And what is not understood is feared).That is such a pitifully weak excuse and demonstrates more bias than reason. There are plenty of resources, easily accessible, if one is truly interested in knowing what Mormonism is all about. Moreover, I admire a person who has the courage to change his mind in the light of new evidence, as Mitt Romney has done. I want a President who has the self-confidence and the courage to change his mind after exploring all the facts and the changes that have taken place. If one's synaptic connections have been completed and they sincerely compare the candidates they will discover that Mitt Romney is the most
qualified of the candidates and the fear that the Mormon church from Salt Lake City will dictate to him is not only just plain silly, it is palpably false.

Inquiring minds might wish to know why Republican evangelicals in Iowa turned out in unusually high numbers during a down Republican cycle. Huckabee dominated among evangelicals in Iowa, but hasn’t done as well in subsequent contests. Why? It might appear that Huckabee simply worked to appeal to his base in Iowa, and Romney blew it in Iowa by running negative ads directed at Huckabee. Maybe. Anti-Mormon preaching, teaching, evangelizing, demonizing is a significant and normal part of the mainstream evangelical religious experience. In my view; what Huckabee did in Iowa was the most pernicious and insidious kind of attacking that campaigns can be engaged in.

Southern Baptists teach their children in their churches that Mormonism isn’t even a religion, it’s a cult; Mormons are not Christians; Mormons are dishonest, deceiving themselves and the world; Mormons believe in false Gods, etc. Baptist pastors/leaders with ‘authoritative views’ on Mormonism go on the preaching circuit to spread the ‘truth’ to evangelical congregations and youth groups about Mormons. Baptist authors write anti-Mormon books that can be found in almost any ‘Christian’ book store anywhere in the world. Evangelicals line the sidewalks in Salt Lake City during the days of semi-annual Mormon conferences to yell at Mormon adults and children alike, telling them they are all going to hell.

The press widely covered a statement Mr. Huckabee made at a three day Southern Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah in 1998 about ‘taking this nation back for Christ’. But why were the Southern Baptists holding their convention in Salt Lake City to begin with? They were going right to the heart of Mormon country to make a statement about Mormonism. Governor Huckabees book titled, Character is the Issue; How People with Integrity Can Revolutionize America was given to reporters at that 1998 Salt Lake City Convention, right along with the book titled Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts.

AND YET when Mr. Huckabee is asked by Times Magazine if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion he says, “I think it’s a religion, I really don’t know much about it.’’ Ha! So, Southern Baptist pastors and leaders and speakers and authors and adherents all preach that Mormonism is a cult, and a guy who used to be the head of the Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t know that much about it? And THAT guy called Mr. Romney dishonest? In that same Times article, Mr. Hucakbee ‘innocently’ dropped this code phrase, ‘‘Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’ His entire effort in Iowa was a whisper campaign against Mormons.

Mr. Huckabee knew EXACTLY what he was doing in Iowa by appealing directly to what he knew evangelicals believed about Mormons…from his ‘Christian Leader’ ads, to his attacks on Romney’s character/honesty, to his ‘innocent’ statements in the press.

I am a Mormon, my husband is not. Both of us have been more politically involved over the years in local campaigns than most citizens, both in our community & state. We're both Republicans. We looked hard and long at Mitt Romney and his positions and the other Republican candidates. I would never vote for someone simply because he is of my faith - in fact, I probably scrutinized him more than other candidates because of that. But, both of us, independently, felt he had more of what we were looking for in a candidate than all of the others. His positions, etc., were more completely aligned with what we wanted in our next president.

What astounds both myself and my husband is the media's and other candidate's
accusations against him about flipping, when every single other candidate has flipped on issues also, and yet, no one in journalism has ever accused them of changing their positions. We're told they are "realigning" their thoughts on the position.

Then, after the Nevada win, going into Florida, we've noticed that the other candidates are talked about by the media, but Romney either isn't mentioned at all or is only mentioned in a brief sentence at most. It's sad. I'm astounded at the prejudice against his (and my) religion. Even my husband who isn't religious at all, has been amazed. If a religion that asks people to love one another, to be kind to others of different viewpoints & religions, to serve others, and has spent millions and millions in so much humanitarian aid, not only in this country, but around the world - and yet, still, is continually treated so poorly, it's a very sad situation.

According to the poll, 57 percent of conservative evangelicals have a bias against Mormons, they said.

This pretty much says it all. If they can't attack him on religious grounds then they try to accuse him of flip-flopping on the issues. Why don't any of the other candidates get accused of this. J. McCain has done a 180 on immigration policy since he started campaigning in the Southern states. Huckabee is the same. Gulianni hasn't even made it clear what his policy is.

My beef is that Mitt Romney is being treated as a non-conservative, non-Christian, pro-abortion supporter, when he's got more conservative Christian pro-family values than the rest of candidates.

I wish people debating whether to vote for Mr. Romney or not would take some advice from the good book which Mormons and other Christians both read and believe and simply judge the man by his fruits.
Have his efforts produced positive or negative results? Look at his Family. Look at his Business Life. Look at his Political life. Do you like what you see? If so, you should consider voting for him. If not, don't.
Would you like someone to not hire you,be friends with you, or vote for you because you are a Jew, or a Baptist or a Catholic or whatever your beliefs?
Does the Golden Rule only apply to those who believe as you do?
"By their Fruits ye shall know them."

The best thing that could happen to this country would be to have Mitt Romney as our president. The man is brilliant and knows how to make good things happen. He has the expertise in business to build a stable ecomony, among dozens of other attibutes. Forget the flip-flop stupidity of some people, forget the bias against Mormonism. Let's get smart and get this man elected!

My belief is in voting for the most qualified person, regardless of his religion. I belive in Mitt's economy plan, in how he plans to handle the illegal alien situation, his plan for Social Security, All his tax agendas, in short, all his plans for the betterment of our nation. This is why I am voting for Mitt Romney.

Edward T. Watts

Not voting for a person because they are mormon is a valid reason. If you don't want to vote someone that attends a different church so be it. It worked great in Rwhanda. Im sure it will be a great precedent for our country.

These people forget that there is no religious test necessary to be a candidate for the President of the United States. They are, to put it bluntly, blooming hypocrites. All candidates flip-flop on issues. This is nothing new!

I confess I don't understand people at all. Republicans/conservatives claim to want an honest, upstanding person as president, yet they don't seem to, really. Romney is faithful to his religion, faithful to his one wife, he has children to be proud of, he has been very successful in business (and no one has suggested that he cheated anyone to get ahead). If the worst thing they could say about him is that he changed his stand on abortion or anything else, compare that to the baggage other candidates carry! In fact, he never believed in abortion but didn't feel it was right to impose his personal beliefs on public policy, and he has explained that - that was what he changed his mind about, not about abortion, because he didn't need to change his mind about that. The more I've learned about the other candidates, the less I can understand their appeal. Romney is what he appears to be - there is nothing phony about him.

Many are afraid of Mitt Romney (not his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) but in the man himself. He exhudes power. His power comes from a commitment to the strength of the American people. He will be elected President of the USA despite this adversity.

Many are afraid of Mitt Romney (not his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) but in the man himself. He exhudes power. His power comes from a commitment to the strength of the American people. He will be elected President of the USA despite this adversity.

By their fruits -- I taught my children that when they were looking for a mate to look at their ENTIRE history -- all the choices they have made and see if their PATTERNS of behavior were in keeping with those they wanted to marry. The same is aa good measure for a candidate. Look at all the dynamics of their life and decide if they bear good fruits. I believe if you look at Romney's entire life, you see a pattern that is one of moral values, hard work, placing people before the dollar, smart thinking and a positive vision for the future.

We are seeing three tiers of acceptance on the current political scene: had Robert Livingston been a Democrat he would still be representing Louisiana. The same standard for that Texan who sent Emails to House pages. That is the first tier. Next, had Larry Craig been Democrat we would have had almost no ripple in the newsmedia about whatever happened in Minnesota. Republican senators are held to a standard higher than their Democrat colleagues. That is the second tier. Mitt Romney has had lots of time to rue the day he stated he would uphold the Roe v Wade opinion by the Supreme Court, but NEVER has he had any statement that he favors choice to demolish babies or anything like it. The mainstream media has built the rest of that upper tier of flip-flopping.

When I campaigned (and won) the race for the State Senate, I spoke with a friend in New Jersey about the flack I was taking from people because I was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. His answer was that in New Jersey the question was his taking flack because he was Catholic. He then said: "People tend to be down on what they are not up on. He said not to worry because we are singled out because of our sincere belief. We should worry because of dis-interested citizens and the placing of bias over substance". If you do not agree with a candidate because of differences of substance (policies), then vote for the candidate with whom you most closely agree. I agree with Mitt Romney's policies, his goodness and ability to accomplish. I am voting "for" him - not against others.

I find it fascinating that so many people in this great country are so uniformed, prejudiced and religiously bigoted. When you look for a person to be the President of the United States and leader of the free world, it goes beyond all the useless rhetoric that fills the media airwaves and the bickering that we see from the candidates and even people who leave comments on internet blogs. It is a matter of talent and real ability. Talent to lead a nation is made up of several characteristics which include: Proven leadership, perceptiveness, honesty, hard working, loyalty, knowledge, moral integrity, and faith. We need a leader who looks acts and IS capable and well qualified to lead us in the right direction. Someone we can call a friend to freedom, and prosperity for all Americans. We need someone who cares, and can lead us out of the problems we have got ourselves into. No one man or woman can do that. We elect a person to lead us there in an effort together. So, let’s really think this through and put the person who can do this in the White House. A person faithful to his beliefs, happily married to the same woman his whole adult life, a true family man with the strength and talent to get us there, Mitt Romney is it, and he stands alone.

Romney would make a wonderful president. He would certainly fix the economic issues we are faced with today. He's a good Latter-day Saint that lives his religion. I think a lot of evangelicals are threatened by the truth that the Mormons have. We do believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly and we know that the Book of Mormon is a second witness that Jesus is the Christ. We're as Christian as anyone!
This country needs a leader such as Romney that believes in the sanctity of marriage, has excellent family values, is smart economically and would know what to do as president of these United States. He's honest, has integrity and lives his religion and loves his country. Promises to uphold everything that our founding fathers believe in. He's a republican and a conservative. What more than you want, apparently that other candidates don't have what Romney has to give. Fred Thompson would be the other one for my choice, unfortunately he bowed out today. You all should give Romney a chance and let him prove that he can fix Washington to make it better than it has been!

I would like to know what the other candidates were doing when they were 19 yrs old. Romney was out on his own time and money teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will bet Huckabee was smoking joints and chasing girls.

If you want to know about the Momon religion from an authentic source rather than from someone with a bias go to the internet mormon.org. Bruce Preece