I have changed my mind. The kooky doctrines will help do Romney in, to the advatage of the seemingly more liberated Catholic, RG.

Peter, you need to get a memo to Hugh Hewitt, for he’s gone off the deep end over Romney.

Just the other day he tried to demand that McCain declare that Romney’s Mormonism "was off limits" as a political issue during the campaign. As if John McCain had the power to issue the political equivalent of a Papal Bull. And as if such a statement by a contender would actually succeed in removing the issue from the private considerations of ordinary Americans.

Romney isn’t Steve Young. The nation knows Steve Young, the nation likes Steve Young. Even Dallas Cowboys fans like Steve Young. Romney isn’t Steve Young.

But if you try to point out that besides his naked pandering and position shifting, that his Mormonism probably isn’t going to fly, Hewitt denounces you as a bigot.

Who wins elections by brow-beating the electorate. Bush tried that tactic with Harriet Meirs, he tried that tactic with the Dubai ports deal. Brow-beating isn’t going to get Romney to the White House.

Slight misnomer in the linked article. We believe he, Christ, visited the peoples of the South or Central American continents, not America, or even North America...

Ehh, what a shame. What I know of Mormonism comes from knowing and working with actual Mormons, and driving the long ways through the state many times over the last 40 years. Utah is a model of industry and almost boring wholesomeness--the only place I count on getting caffeine-free Pepsi refills at any interstate C-store. Mormons also managed the Nevada hotels and gambling pits. They were good people. They are doggedly family oriented and dependable Republicans.

So we’re going to throw all this over, for what now? If they were flying planes into skyscrapers maybe I could see it.

Well, my sentiments are with carol...What’s so bad about boring wholesomeness? And the average Mormon has reflected more seriously about God (and even gods) and the good than say either Hillary or Obama or Rudy.

Carol, we’re not talking what’s ideal. Sure, it would be great if the American electorate were free of such thoughts, but that’s probably not the case. That being so, that being a feature of our political landscape, is this then the appropriate time to take a chance with Romney?

To me, the question answers itself. This is no time for the GOP to take that chance. If Romney were serious about the overall agenda of the GOP, about the party platform, about the war effort, he wouldn’t be offering himself at this time for the nomination. The fact that he’s running at this time when so much is at stake, tell me something about him, and it doesn’t speak favourable.

I agree with Carol, but this blog just keeps digging up Mormonism. I want to talk about Romney’s liberalism. He has flip-flopped on more things than John Kerry in less than 4 years. If I have to, I’ll do what it takes to beat him, but I have been blogging mostly on his policy positions, not his religion; unlike the imprudent Mormon issues always being raked up here.

Not me, I haven’t "dug up" anything on Mormonism. And I usually take what I hear about Mormonism with a grain of salt. For me, it wasn’t his Mormonism that turned me against him. It’s the fact that within the last year he joined the National Rifle Association. There is a difference between pandering that is smooth, artful, and then there is this type of pandering, which is so naked and awkward, that it reflects poorly on the candidate. Here is a for instance, GHWB changed his position on abortion. But he did so in such a gradual, unnoticed manner, that few observed the shift. And it certainly didn’t register with the American electorate. Now compare that to how Romney has handled his flip-flops. Everyone KNOWS his change of positions on gun control, abortion and legal recognition of homosexual unions.

In short, Romney handled it like a clod. I expected better from him.

Christian orthodoxy isn’t the point in a presidential election. Opposition to the liberal countercultural dogma is far more important. And Mormons stack up well on that one.

"Carol, we’re not talking what’s ideal. Sure, it would be great if the American electorate were free of such thoughts, but that’s probably not the case."

Well I know that. It’s just that anyone in the Utah-Nevada-Idaho region is so accustomed to Mormans in everyday life. They’re practically mundane, beyond ordinary, except that as I get older I appreciate them more and more.

And I don’t think the average American has given Morman doctrine much thought nor wants to, any more than the average Catholic wants to contemplate Transubstantiation. So I guess the Left has to pump all these doubts into their heads.

For the record, I do not support Mitt Romney. I don’t know who I support.

...moreover, I am tired of pretty-boy candidates. We’re looking for a president not a boy singer.

Be careful saying Romney’s religion ought to be off limits, "like everybody else’." Romney’s religion is American, it’s an American home-brew. But what of islam?

If a muslim were running for high office, or if a muslim were nominated to the Supreme Court, who would be willing to stretch the point and declare that islam should be off limits too.

My point about Romney’s Mormonism is a narrow one. I don’t think the American people will cotton to the idea of voting in sufficient numbers for a Mormon, at least not right now. Maybe a decade hence..., could be a different story. But right now, I don’t think so.

Thus I think that nominating Romney would be a mistake, it wouldn’t be courting failure, it would probably guarantee it.

Today’s verdict against Libby should serve to remind all of us what BURDENS, what a millstone we’re going to be carrying into the ’08 election. This is no time to be taking on additional weight.

Romney’s mormonism would be a problem I suppose if it gave rise to specific policy outcomes. Those who are critical of Romney because of his mormonism ought to tell us what exactly we should be worried about. As for his flip-flopping, the abortion flip flop is a non-starter. Is it not the very purpose of the pro-life crowd to convince others of the immorality of abortion? When someone therefore changes their mind we should at least not accuse them of flip-flopping. As for the marriage debate, to have defended traditional marriage in a state like Massachusetts was somewhat ballsy. The joining of the NRA, I say who cares. So long as he has no anti-gun animus I say ley it slide. I find it also somewhat remarkable that some conservatives support Rudy, but attack Romney on conservative grounds.

I’m willing to declare that Islam should be off limits.

I’ve no probs with the NRA. That wasn’t my point. My point was that Romeny joined within the last year and a half. So we’ve got a guy in his fifties, who never belonged to the NRA, probably never attended any of their national conventions, but at this late date in his life, all of a sudden develops a hankering to have an NRA sticker.........????????? And the timing of his new found hankering coincides remarkably with his Presidential ambitions........??????????? Curiouser and curiouser.....

That’s my point, it’s pandering, it displays lack of character. Rudy hasn’t pandered, that’s part of the reason why he gets a pass, not to mention, the GOP doesn’t want to entertain bad thoughts about Rudy, he’s a national hero, and the GOP respects national heroes. Which is why we’re aggravated with McCain. The party was always ready to respect more than most McCain, but he’s made it almost impossible for the base to have any devotion for him.