ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Nordling]

It was called his "Faith in America" speech...a long, winding dissertation that seems to contradict itself in many places...he calls for religious liberty and then states that his faith will "inform my Presidency..."

Obama, and pretty much every president in memory, has used similar rhetoric in speeches. He certainly has made allusions to traditional christian beliefs and how they make this country run. So I don't find that quote particularly damning.

And sure the citizens are free to discuss his faith all they want, just as I am free to suggest it would be less petty to talk about the things he's actually done and said.

I would agree if he would stop talking about his religion so much. Yeah, nearly all candidates wave God around like some kind of banner, but it's generally just empty rhetoric to avoid being accused of being irreligious (which in this country makes it nearly impossible to run for office).

Harry Reid is a Mormon too, but if you didn't look it up, you might never know it, we see no indication that his faith may interfere with his duties as a politician. Romney's faith, conversely DOES tell us something about his character...as a Bishop, he did some pretty nasty stuff, e.g.

 

[jackie_O]

as a Bishop, he did some pretty nasty stuff, e.g.

Like?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

And really, why are religions off the table when we discuss a candidate? The constitution does say there will be "no religious test," but that means that the GOVERNMENT may not dismiss a candidate for his religion--us citizens are free to discuss it freely.

Of course you are. People are also allowed to discus President Obama racial background and how that qualifies or disqualifies him. However, in 2012 we have a word for people who do that it is called bigot.

There is no difference between saying.
Mr. Obama is black. Black people believe in XYZ and do ABC. Therefore Mr. Obama believes in XYZ and will do ABC. and saying
Mr. Romney is Mormon. Mormon people believe in XYZ and do ABC. Therefore Mr. Romney believes in XYZ and will do ABC.

You've been doing that pretty much the whole thread. I found religious bigotry no more acceptable than racial bigotry.

 

[Nordling]

as a Bishop, he did some pretty nasty stuff, e.g.

Like?

Like:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-Bishop-Shows-his-Extremist-Religious-Beliefs

 

[Nordling]

And really, why are religions off the table when we discuss a candidate? The constitution does say there will be "no religious test," but that means that the GOVERNMENT may not dismiss a candidate for his religion--us citizens are free to discuss it freely.

Of course you are. People are also allowed to discus President Obama racial background and how that qualifies or disqualifies him. However, in 2012 we have a word for people who do that it is called bigot.

There is no difference between saying.
Mr. Obama is black. Black people believe in XYZ and do ABC. Therefore Mr. Obama believes in XYZ and will do ABC. and saying
Mr. Romney is Mormon. Mormon people believe in XYZ and do ABC. Therefore Mr. Romney believes in XYZ and will do ABC.

You've been doing that pretty much the whole thread. I found religious bigotry no more acceptable than racial bigotry.

Okay, then I'm a bigot. If I find a religion to be racist, homophobic and patriarchal, and STATE it, it makes me a bigot. Fine. I feel no shame.

We aren't born Mormons, Catholics, Jains, Atheists, or Hindus. You can always leave a religion. You cannot change your DNA...and to diss someone for their race is REAL bigotry.

 

[JickyJuly]

And really, why are religions off the table when we discuss a candidate? The constitution does say there will be "no religious test," but that means that the GOVERNMENT may not dismiss a candidate for his religion--us citizens are free to discuss it freely.

Of course you are. People are also allowed to discus President Obama racial background and how that qualifies or disqualifies him. However, in 2012 we have a word for people who do that it is called bigot.

There is no difference between saying.
Mr. Obama is black. Black people believe in XYZ and do ABC. Therefore Mr. Obama believes in XYZ and will do ABC. and saying
Mr. Romney is Mormon. Mormon people believe in XYZ and do ABC. Therefore Mr. Romney believes in XYZ and will do ABC.

You've been doing that pretty much the whole thread. I found religious bigotry no more acceptable than racial bigotry.

Black people don't have a set of beliefs that they follow. Your race happens genetically. Choosing to be align yourself as part of a religion is just that a choice. Voting for a candidate based on the choices they make is sensible. Voting based on the amount of melanin their skin contains is idiotic.

 

[Jupiter551]

I think it's important because for some religions, separating loyalty between their god and their country isn't actually an issue - it goes to their god every time. Most religious people in most religions are moderate in their outlook, and unlikely to let their church dictate their policy.

The mormon religion however, is not one of these. They have extremist views hidden beneath a thin veneer of clean-cut chirpiness. For a mormon to speak out against, denounce, or otherwise act in a manner that contradicts their official stance isn't considered a non-issue. It's considered apostasy. Excommunication.

http://www.mormonthink.com/politics.htm

If he were elected, would the LDS church influence President Mitt Romney to administer its agenda?

Given Romney has served as a clergyman, still holding the office of High Priest in the LDS church to date, he just may find that he answers to a higher power (i.e., the LDS prophet) more than to the US voters. Romney, as a faithful LDS member, has solemnly covenanted in the Mormon temple that he wholly-devotes himself, his time and his talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed him to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see the words of the “Law of Consecration” and “Law of Sacrifice” given in the temple).

Members excommunicated for political and/or contrary speech
There is a long list of members who’ve been excommunicated from the LDS church for political/contrary speech. Some of the more noted or recent include:

Sonia Johnson, advocate of ERA was excommunicated in 1981.
D. Michael Quinn, former BYU historian who wrote several controversial tomes on Mormon authority, was excommunicated in 1993.
Lynne Kanavel Whitesides, a feminist noted for speaking on the feminine side of God and women’s rights was excommunicated in 1993.
Paul Toscano, attorney and author writing about hierarchical authoritarianism of the corporate LDS Church was excommunicated in 1993.
Maxine Hanks, feminist theologian and editor of “Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism” was excommunicated in 1993.
Lavina Fielding Anderson, feminist writer and editor of “Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective” was excommunicated in 1993.
Margaret Toscano, a classics professor at the University of Utah writing about the role of women in Mormonism was excommunicated in 2000.
Andrew Callahan, advocate of gay rights and opposition to Proposition 8 was hauled into LDS procedure for excommunication in 2008.

 

[Jupiter551]

There is no difference between saying.
Mr. Obama is black. Black people believe in XYZ and do ABC. Therefore Mr. Obama believes in XYZ and will do ABC. and saying
Mr. Romney is Mormon. Mormon people believe in XYZ and do ABC. Therefore Mr. Romney believes in XYZ and will do ABC.

Holy shit can you really not see the difference? On the one hand you have a skin tone and on the other you have a high ranking member of a very strict doctrine with set beliefs and permittted actions.

In fact, that you would make such a comparison is openly racist.

 

[jackie_O]

Like:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-Bishop-Shows-his-Extremist-Religious-Beliefs

This is again exactly what I'm talking about.

The church allows abortion in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, provided a male LDS authority gives permission to the pregnant woman. Romney's superior had already told the woman to proceed for the sake of her health

Romney intervened.

This isn't a problem because of Romney's faith, it is a problem with him as a person and his relationship with his faith. We can look at these individual things he has done, analyze them, and see he is a bad candidate without saying he is a bad candidate because he is a Mormon.

 

[Nordling]

Like:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-Bishop-Shows-his-Extremist-Religious-Beliefs

This is again exactly what I'm talking about.

The church allows abortion in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, provided a male LDS authority gives permission to the pregnant woman. Romney's superior had already told the woman to proceed for the sake of her health

Romney intervened.

This isn't a problem because of Romney's faith, it is a problem with him as a person and his relationship with his faith. We can look at these individual things he has done, analyze them, and see he is a bad candidate without saying he is a bad candidate because he is a Mormon.

Splitting a hair pretty thin there, when he threatened excommunication UNLESS she gave up her baby for adoption, he was ACTING for the church as a Bishop. In Romney's case, I don't think you can completely separate the two...with Harry Reid, fine...as far as I know, he doesn't mix his religion with his government.

 

[Nordling]

And I agree, Romney isn't a bad candidate because he's a Mormon...he's a bad candidate in PART because there's reason to believe his religion will affect his actions in office.

 

[Jupiter551]

Oh, btw as of just three weeks ago the author of the page I linked and quoted to above has now been called to church trial and faces possible (hell, probable) excommunication for writing the linked article.

 

[jackie_O]

Splitting a hair pretty thin there, when he threatened excommunication UNLESS she gave up her baby for adoption, he was ACTING for the church as a Bishop. In Romney's case, I don't think you can completely separate the two...with Harry Reid, fine...as far as I know, he doesn't mix his religion with his government.

I don't think it is splitting hairs, to me it seems pretty clear. If one says that someone is a bad candidate because they are Mormon it implies that all Mormons would be bad candidates. These are examples of things he has done that are extreme even outside of other Mormon leaders. If you have a political candidate that is Catholic and has molested a child, you don't say he is a bad candidate because he is Catholic, you say he is a bad candidate because he is a child molester. The difference seems really obvious to me.

The fact that you can be fine with this other candidate because he doesn't mix his religion with his government tells me that you don't actually have a problem with a Mormon candidate, just the relationship that candidate has with his or her religion. Which is all I've been saying.

 

[Nordling]

Splitting a hair pretty thin there, when he threatened excommunication UNLESS she gave up her baby for adoption, he was ACTING for the church as a Bishop. In Romney's case, I don't think you can completely separate the two...with Harry Reid, fine...as far as I know, he doesn't mix his religion with his government.

I don't think it is splitting hairs, to me it seems pretty clear. If one says that someone is a bad candidate because they are Mormon it implies that all Mormons would be bad candidates. These are examples of things he has done that are extreme even outside of other Mormon leaders. If you have a political candidate that is Catholic and has molested a child, you don't say he is a bad candidate because he is Catholic, you say he is a bad candidate because he is a child molester. The difference seems really obvious to me.

The fact that you can be fine with this other candidate because he doesn't mix his religion with his government tells me that you don't actually have a problem with a Mormon candidate, just the relationship that candidate has with his or her religion. Which is all I've been saying.

Absolutely. But in Romney's case (not in other Mormon's case) it is the nature of his religion that he acted on, so in discussion we should discuss Mormonism to attempt to understand part of why he does certain things. I would say that MOST people ignore a lot of the strict tenets of their religion...I'm suggesting that that is not the case with Romney...so if he's a strict Mormon in his activities, it isn't petty to understand what that is.

If a Catholic started burning witches, I would not say all Catholics burned witches, but I would try to see what aspect of Catholicism led him to burn witches. Most catholic women use birth control for instance....even though the Church dislikes that.

If Mike Huckabee were the candidate, yes, I'd look into his fundamentalist faith to understand the source of his crazy statements.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Black people don't have a set of beliefs that they follow. Your race happens genetically. Choosing to be align yourself as part of a religion is just that a choice. Voting for a candidate based on the choices they make is sensible. Voting based on the amount of melanin their skin contains is idiotic.

First of all Mr. Romney family has been Mormon for nearly 150 years. In theory he does have a choice in practice most people follow their parents religious and political beliefs. Given his mixed racial background Mr. Obama could choose to identify like Tiger Wood as a mixed race person, instead he chooses to calls himself black.

Second you are stereotyping that all Mormon hold the same beliefs, they do not. I have had plenty of drinks with Mormons. I've also met some Catholics who are pro-choice as well as many who are pro-life. Here in the US most Catholics use birth control in other places most don't. Just because many Muslim's belief woman's faces and bodies should not be seen by other men, doesn't mean that all Muslim belief that.

In most cases Mr. Romney views on social issues are the same as the Mormon church. Joe Biden is "devout" Catholic his church opposes abortion, gay marriage and even thinks birth control and masturbation are a mortal sin. I can only imagine what the church position is on cam girls. If you don't want to vote Mr. Romney because you disagree with him on abortion rights or gay rights that is fine. If you don't want vote for Mr. Romney because he is a Mormon and you think you know what all Mormon's believe than you are being a religious bigot.

 

[Nordling]

Black people don't have a set of beliefs that they follow. Your race happens genetically. Choosing to be align yourself as part of a religion is just that a choice. Voting for a candidate based on the choices they make is sensible. Voting based on the amount of melanin their skin contains is idiotic.

First of all Mr. Romney family has been Mormon for nearly 150 years. In theory he does have a choice in practice most people follow their parents religious and political beliefs. Given his mixed racial background Mr. Obama could choose to identify like Tiger Wood as a mixed race person, instead he chooses to calls himself black.

Second you are stereotyping that all Mormon hold the same beliefs, they do not. I have had plenty of drinks with Mormons. I've also met some Catholics who are pro-choice as well as many who are pro-life. Here in the US most Catholics use birth control in other places most don't. Just because many Muslim's belief woman's faces and bodies should not be seen by other men, doesn't mean that all Muslim belief that.

In most cases Mr. Romney views on social issues are the same as the Mormon church. Joe Biden is "devout" Catholic his church opposes abortion, gay marriage and even thinks birth control and masturbation are a mortal sin. I can only imagine what the church position is on cam girls. If you don't want to vote Mr. Romney because you disagree with him on abortion rights or gay rights that is fine. If you don't want vote for Mr. Romney because he is a Mormon and you think you know what all Mormon's believe than you are being a religious bigot.

No one said "all" but you.

 

[jackie_O]

Splitting a hair pretty thin there, when he threatened excommunication UNLESS she gave up her baby for adoption, he was ACTING for the church as a Bishop. In Romney's case, I don't think you can completely separate the two...with Harry Reid, fine...as far as I know, he doesn't mix his religion with his government.

I don't think it is splitting hairs, to me it seems pretty clear. If one says that someone is a bad candidate because they are Mormon it implies that all Mormons would be bad candidates. These are examples of things he has done that are extreme even outside of other Mormon leaders. If you have a political candidate that is Catholic and has molested a child, you don't say he is a bad candidate because he is Catholic, you say he is a bad candidate because he is a child molester. The difference seems really obvious to me.

The fact that you can be fine with this other candidate because he doesn't mix his religion with his government tells me that you don't actually have a problem with a Mormon candidate, just the relationship that candidate has with his or her religion. Which is all I've been saying.

Absolutely. But in Romney's case (not in other Mormon's case) it is the nature of his religion that he acted on, so in discussion we should discuss Mormonism to attempt to understand part of why he does certain things. I would say that MOST people ignore a lot of the strict tenets of their religion...I'm suggesting that that is not the case with Romney...so if he's a strict Mormon in his activities, it isn't petty to understand what that is.

If a Catholic started burning witches, I would not say all Catholics burned witches, but I would try to see what aspect of Catholicism led him to burn witches. Most catholic women use birth control for instance....even though the Church dislikes that.

If Mike Huckabee were the candidate, yes, I'd look into his fundamentalist faith to understand the source of his crazy statements.

I can agree to an extent that it is okay to look at tenets of Mormonism that may have effected him in his leanings. But I still think it is more worthwhile to see that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion and anti-contraception and say "How will these stances effect his presidency?" Rather than "How will his Mormonism effect his presidency?"

 

[Nordling]

Splitting a hair pretty thin there, when he threatened excommunication UNLESS she gave up her baby for adoption, he was ACTING for the church as a Bishop. In Romney's case, I don't think you can completely separate the two...with Harry Reid, fine...as far as I know, he doesn't mix his religion with his government.

I don't think it is splitting hairs, to me it seems pretty clear. If one says that someone is a bad candidate because they are Mormon it implies that all Mormons would be bad candidates. These are examples of things he has done that are extreme even outside of other Mormon leaders. If you have a political candidate that is Catholic and has molested a child, you don't say he is a bad candidate because he is Catholic, you say he is a bad candidate because he is a child molester. The difference seems really obvious to me.

The fact that you can be fine with this other candidate because he doesn't mix his religion with his government tells me that you don't actually have a problem with a Mormon candidate, just the relationship that candidate has with his or her religion. Which is all I've been saying.

Absolutely. But in Romney's case (not in other Mormon's case) it is the nature of his religion that he acted on, so in discussion we should discuss Mormonism to attempt to understand part of why he does certain things. I would say that MOST people ignore a lot of the strict tenets of their religion...I'm suggesting that that is not the case with Romney...so if he's a strict Mormon in his activities, it isn't petty to understand what that is.

If a Catholic started burning witches, I would not say all Catholics burned witches, but I would try to see what aspect of Catholicism led him to burn witches. Most catholic women use birth control for instance....even though the Church dislikes that.

If Mike Huckabee were the candidate, yes, I'd look into his fundamentalist faith to understand the source of his crazy statements.

I can agree to an extent that it is okay to look at tenets of Mormonism that may have effected him in his leanings. But I still think it is more worthwhile to see that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion and anti-contraception and say "How will these stances effect his presidency?" Rather than "How will his Mormonism effect his presidency?"

Totally agree. His religion is just a side issue...exaggerated by the fact that he's done evil shit under the auspices of his church. If, after he did that crap listed in that link, the church had come out and said he was wrong, it'd be another whole discussion, but apparently he and the church acted as one.

 

[Mirra]

Yeah... I don't know why I'm back in this thread but whatever. I made it a while without it though.

First of all Mr. Romney family has been Mormon for nearly 150 years. In theory he does have a choice in practice most people follow their parents religious and political beliefs. Given his mixed racial background Mr. Obama could choose to identify like Tiger Wood as a mixed race person, instead he chooses to calls himself black.

So you're saying Romney is a sheep? Not much of a leader. Also, I'm pretty certain most people still call Tiger Woods a black man just as most people call Obama a black man. Obama has not chosen to hide his white mother and grandparents. If anything he's had to distance himself from his father because of all the drama regarding him.

Second you are stereotyping that all Mormon hold the same beliefs, they do not. I have had plenty of drinks with Mormons. I've also met some Catholics who are pro-choice as well as many who are pro-life. Here in the US most Catholics use birth control in other places most don't. Just because many Muslim's belief woman's faces and bodies should not be seen by other men, doesn't mean that all Muslim belief that.

The Latter Day Saints are probably the most progressive of the Mormon sects. They still hold quite firmly to their health code avoiding addictive drinks. Those Mormons having a few drinks were probably breaking the code. There's quite a bit more difference between Christian, Jewish, and Islamic sects/denominations than between the different Mormon sects so far. Polygamy is definitely a big difference but it's the most notable one. More differentiation will come in time I suspect.

In most cases Mr. Romney views on social issues are the same as the Mormon church. Joe Biden is "devout" Catholic his church opposes abortion, gay marriage and even thinks birth control and masturbation are a mortal sin. I can only imagine what the church position is on cam girls. If you don't want to vote Mr. Romney because you disagree with him on abortion rights or gay rights that is fine. If you don't want vote for Mr. Romney because he is a Mormon and you think you know what all Mormon's believe than you are being a religious bigot.

There's a difference between following the values of ones religion and governing/legislating based on religious beliefs. As someone who isn't a Christian myself, I appreciate a candidate who can follow his own religion while governing based on what's best for all the people they represent rather than what his religion dictates.

 

[jackie_O]

Totally agree. His religion is just a side issue...exaggerated by the fact that he's done evil shit under the auspices of his church. If, after he did that crap listed in that link, the church had come out and said he was wrong, it'd be another whole discussion, but apparently he and the church acted as one.

The reasons why the church responded (or didn't respond as the case may be) the way that they did to any of his actions while acting as an officiant of the church can be many fold. Including the possibility that they totally agreed with what he said and did. But that's an entirely different topic.

At the moment it is time for me to head to sleep. I really enjoyed this conversation, and I'll probably be back tomorrow.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I can agree to an extent that it is okay to look at tenets of Mormonism that may have effected him in his leanings. But I still think it is more worthwhile to see that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion and anti-contraception and say "How will these stances effect his presidency?" Rather than "How will his Mormonism effect his presidency?"

Just for the record the Mormon church, unlike the Catholic church, doesn't oppose contraception, and believes it is a choice best left to husband and wife. Romney doesn't oppose contraception,only the HHS requirement, that religious organization (such as the Catholic church) be required to provide it for their employees. I think he is on solid constitutional ground and would be shocked SCOTUS if allowed it.

 

[Nordling]

I can agree to an extent that it is okay to look at tenets of Mormonism that may have effected him in his leanings. But I still think it is more worthwhile to see that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion and anti-contraception and say "How will these stances effect his presidency?" Rather than "How will his Mormonism effect his presidency?"

Just for the record the Mormon church, unlike the Catholic church, doesn't oppose contraception, and believes it is a choice best left to husband and wife. Romney doesn't oppose contraception,only the HHS requirement, that religious organization (such as the Catholic church) be required to provide it for their employees. I think he is on solid constitutional ground and would be shocked SCOTUS if allowed it.

I wish you'd learn how to use the quote function.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I wish you'd learn how to use the quote function.

Sorry it works differently than any other Vbulletin system I've used. Is there an option to turn off multiple levels of quoting? I hate quoting 1/2 page when really only respond to a couple of sentences, so I am hand editing and obviously missing a level. I meant to be responding to Jackie not you.

 

[Nordling]

I wish you'd learn how to use the quote function.

Sorry it works differently than any other Vbulletin system I've used. Is there an option to turn off multiple levels of quoting? I hate quoting 1/2 page when really only respond to a couple of sentences, so I am hand editing and obviously missing a level. I meant to be responding to Jackie not you.

Maybe leave all the quotes in but just remove the text...It does take some adroitness I realize and often goof myself.

 

[AllisonWilder]

Sorry it works differently than any other Vbulletin system I've used. Is there an option to turn off multiple levels of quoting? I hate quoting 1/2 page when really only respond to a couple of sentences, so I am hand editing and obviously missing a level. I meant to be responding to Jackie not you.

No need to apologize. It's a learning process. Just delete the middle section of quotes if you only want to quote the most recent post.

 

[Jupiter551]

I can agree to an extent that it is okay to look at tenets of Mormonism that may have effected him in his leanings. But I still think it is more worthwhile to see that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion and anti-contraception and say "How will these stances effect his presidency?" Rather than "How will his Mormonism effect his presidency?"

Just for the record the Mormon church, unlike the Catholic church, doesn't oppose contraception, and believes it is a choice best left to husband and wife. Romney doesn't oppose contraception,only the HHS requirement, that religious organization (such as the Catholic church) be required to provide it for their employees. I think he is on solid constitutional ground and would be shocked SCOTUS if allowed it.

He attempted to veto Roe vs Wade mandated access to emergency contraception (morning after pill), in direct contradiction to his campaign stance of maintaining the pro-choice status-quo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney Here's what one of his senior advisors said:

In 2005, Romney's top political strategist, Michael Murphy, told National Review that the Governor had "been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I can agree to an extent that it is okay to look at tenets of Mormonism that may have effected him in his leanings. But I still think it is more worthwhile to see that he is anti-gay and anti-abortion and anti-contraception and say "How will these stances effect his presidency?" Rather than "How will his Mormonism effect his presidency?"

Just for the record the Mormon church, unlike the Catholic church, doesn't oppose contraception, and believes it is a choice best left to husband and wife. Romney doesn't oppose contraception,only the HHS requirement, that religious organization (such as the Catholic church) be required to provide it for their employees. I think he is on solid constitutional ground and would be shocked SCOTUS if allowed it.

He attempted to veto Roe vs Wade mandated access to emergency contraception (morning after pill), in direct contradiction to his campaign stance of maintaining the pro-choice status-quo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney Here's what one of his senior advisors said:

In 2005, Romney's top political strategist, Michael Murphy, told National Review that the Governor had "been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."

A bit of deceptive quoting from Wiki here. Here is the full relevant paragraph.

In a May 2005 press conference, Romney when asked about Massachusetts abortion laws stated, "I have indicated that as governor, I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice, and so far I've been able to successfully do that."[148]

Romney has said he has kept his campaign promises. Romney vetoed an emergency contraception bill in July 2005, claiming that allowing it to pass into law would violate his "moratorium" on changes to the abortion laws.[149] He vetoed a bill on pro-life grounds that the bill would expand access to emergency contraception in hospitals and pharmacies. He returned from his vacation house in New Hampshire to veto the bill, because the Lt. Govorner, Kerry Healey would have signed the bill into law.[150] The legislature voted overwhelmingly to overturn the veto and pass the bill into law on September 15, 2005.[151] At the time of the veto, Romney said he does not support abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened.[152] He opposed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, criticizing "'one size fits all' judicial pronouncements".[152] The following year, Romney's spokesperson has also indicated that were he the governor of that state, he would sign into law the controversial South Dakota abortion law, but include exceptions for cases of incest or rape, which the South Dakota law excludes.[153]

In 2005, Romney's top political strategist, Michael Murphy, told National Review that the Governor had "been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."[154] Murphy later explained that he "was discussing a characterization the governor's critics use(emphasis added)

Do you see how leaving out the last sentence completely changes the meaning.

More importantly lets look at the opposition to the bill which was not based on it being contraceptive but rather abortion. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#cite_note-138

A Massachusetts law that went into effect on 14 December 2005 requires all hospitals in the state to provide emergency contraception to any "female rape victim of childbearing age"[136] including Catholic Hospitals who oppose the provision of emergency contraception. In a letter criticizing the joint UN/WHO Inter-agency Field Manual on Reproductive Health in Refugee Situations, the Catholic Church explains its belief that emergency contraception, along with IUDs and hormonal contraception, cannot be considered "solely contraceptive because in the case of effective fertilization a chemical abortion would be carried out during the first days of pregnancy."[137] The Catholic position on family planning is explained further in Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.[138] Because of this expressed moral stance against emergency contraception, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference opposed this law, stating interference with religious freedom. According to The New England Journal of Medicine, "compelling arguments can be made both for and against a pharmacist's right to refuse prescriptions for emergency contraception."[139]

Now I happen to think the Catholic Church is dead wrong here and it is extremely cruel to refuse a day after abortion pill for a rape victim. However, nothing Romney did is inconsistent with his pledge maintain the status quo with respect to abortion. Nor my comment that neither Romney nor Mormon's have a problem with contraception unlike the Catholic church.

I am pro choice and not likely to vote for Gov. Romney but I find distorting his record pretty distasteful.

 

[Jupiter551]

In 2005, Romney's top political strategist, Michael Murphy, told National Review that the Governor had "been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."[154] Murphy later explained that he "was discussing a characterization the governor's critics use(emphasis added)

No, what's deceptive is a senior advisor saying one thing and then going back later when he realises what a mess he's made and trying to cover it up. I purposely didn't include it because flat out saying one thing in an unequivocal way, and then trying to sidestep it is disingenuous. He said it. End of story. It's like saying "all Hispanics should be deported to Mexico" and then some months later saying "oh, I was just characterising a racist attitude". Bullshit.

 

[Nordling]

lol isn't Michael Murphy the guy who first characterized Romney as an "etch-a-sketch?"

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

In 2005, Romney's top political strategist, Michael Murphy, told National Review that the Governor had "been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."[154] Murphy later explained that he "was discussing a characterization the governor's critics use(emphasis added)

No, what's deceptive is a senior advisor saying one thing and then going back later when he realises what a mess he's made and trying to cover it up. I purposely didn't include it because flat out saying one thing in an unequivocal way, and then trying to sidestep it is disingenuous. He said it. End of story. It's like saying "all Hispanics should be deported to Mexico" and then some months later saying "oh, I was just characterising a racist attitude". Bullshit.

Ok we are really in the weeds here. Unless you've lived in Mass. during Gov. Romney time of office, I seriously doubt that you actually have all of the background information needed to understand what happened and you are reading too much into a few sentence. Wiki's and Google is great and all but they often present a distorted view of local politics. I was active in the Sen. McCain 2000 and 2008 campaign and I won't claim to understand the motivations for a senior adviser who lived 6000 miles from me MA. Unless your profile is wrong you are 10 or 11 time zone and 6 years away from the Gov. time in office, and last I looked Australians couldn't vote in US elections.