I am finally ready to declare my support and the support of Political Friends. We are endorsing Mitt Romney for President in 2008. A friend told me when Mitt first declared that I should watch him and I would be impressed. Months later, I have to say that he was right. My friend originally said I would want to support him because he was a Republican that got elected Governor of Massachusetts. While that is an impressive feat, there are other things I like about Gov. Romney as well.
First, I think a critical factor for any candidate this season is how they view Iraq and the war on terror. Governor Romney's site has "Defeating the Jihadists" as one of its prominent issues. I have been impressed by some of his public statements and his support for President Bush's troop surge. Governor Romney has called for a surge of support for the troops. On his official website, he says, "An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations." He calls for America to lead a "broad-based international coalition" to defeat the jihadists. Both of these points seem to be ideas that Democrats can support as well. He also calls for something many have called for in the war against jihadist, "…the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims."
Secondly, I am pro-life. Much like Governor Romney, I had a different belief before I truly had to confront what abortion meant. Governor Romney says that once he had to look at legislation involving abortion, he came to believe that abortion was wrong. I agree with that. When my wife got pregnant, I was confronted on an almost daily basis with the fact that another human life was growing within her. This life deserved to be protected and have a voice in what happened to it.
Governor Romney also has executive leadership. Many Republican and almost all Democratic candidates can't claim that. Romney was President of the Mormon Church, and Governor of Massachusetts. As Governor, he looked at running his state as he would run a business. Because of that, he lowered taxes in Massachusetts and increased revenue to the state. He believes in keeping taxes low and in simplifying our incredibly large tax code. I too believe in both of these points.
Finally, I believe it is a good thing to have someone in office that believes in God and has a core faith. Romney is quoted in the Boston Globe and on his site as saying that our love of liberty, love of country and love of God are what make us a successful nation and society. Romney believes that Americans look for a, "…purpose greater than ourselves in life." That kind of belief in the people of our nation is critical for a President of this great nation. I don't see that in other candidates. Because of that, I am supporting Mitt Romney for President.
19 comments:
Hmm...for some reason I thought that you were a Fred Thompson guy. I would like Romney if he were running for president like he ran for governor. However, I tend to be suspicious of persons who make a sharp shift ideologically to fit in with their party's prevailing ideology right before an election.
Are you talking about his stance on abortion? He changed his position on that while he was Governor. And I am glad to surprise you with my pick.
Andy: Romney has changed his positions on stem cells, abortion, and gay rights since the mid-1990s, when he ran as a more gay-friendly version of Ted Kennedy for Senate. He changed his views on abortion and stem cells late in his only term as governor, right around the time he decided to run for president.
Why do you think it's "a good thing to have someone in office that believes in God and has a core faith."?
Many of history's worst people believed in God and many of history's best people didn't.
I see no connection between being a person of faith and being a good politician or a good leader.
Anonymous: I think it is good to have a person of faith in office because it gives them a guiding principal. There is a chance that when things are tough, they will do what is right because it is the right thing to do, and not because of what poll numbers have said.
Brandon: Gov. Romney says that he changed his position because he looked at the research and debated the issues with others. At the end of this, he came to believe that he was wrong before and that a pro-life position was the right position.
Many people have accused him of flip flopping on this. Whatever your position on abortion or any other issue, if you truly believe you are right, you hope to change peoples minds. That means that from my view on abortion, I am hoping for more people to look at the facts and the issue and realize that they should be pro-life. If you aren’t hoping for people to change their mind, then you can never further your view on any issue.
Has his change been a true change, or one of convenience? He has spoken and written very passionately about the issue since he changed his mind. He feels his record supports him since he had a change of heart. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves me wrong.
In addition, the other issues I talked about, I still believe he is the right guy for. I would love to see a real businessman in the office of President.
Well, like I said, history doesn't exactly support your "people who believe in God do the right thing" theory.
I would disagree. Many of the worst regime's in the 20th century were run by individuals who didn't believe in God. As a quick example, I would point to any of the communist regimes. Communism itself is at war with religion.
Have terrible things been done in the name of religion? Sure. But an individual is more likely to have a moral compass that points the right way if they have a Judaeo-Christian background than if they don't.
I think if you were to look throughout history, you'll see plenty of examples of people who have done the right thing because they believe in God. The problem is, there are plenty of examples where that doesn't hold true, and those are the ones who get the headlines.
My point is that you'll find a lot of people on each side(good people who believe in God and bad people who believe in God). So to use belief in the Christian God as a measure of how moral someone is just doesn't work.
Well, at least we know if Romney is elected President it will be politics as usual. He'll do whatever he has to to buy votes, as seen from this past weekends Straw Poll.
Though I do feel that I am more comfortable knowing the individual leading our country has similar core religious beliefs as I do, I'm not sure Romney does. After reading the Latter Day Saints(mormon.org) overview of their beliefs, I question how much of the religion still holds true to the "Judeo-Christian" theology. I'm not trying to steer the discussion towards a theological debate, however I think Romney's LDS background will and probably should be something that is discussed in depth due to his leadership role in the religion.
If Romney's religion is a guideline for his leadership abilities then maybe he is the best candidate for the Republican party. My fear is that it might hijack his administration.
I think looking at someone's religion is a great way to gauge their moral compass. Romney has been very prominent in the Mormon faith, and I think it is fair to look at that as evidence for a moral compass.
I am not a Mormon. I am a Christian. I have no problem voting for a Mormon. There are things that the Mormons believe in that I don't. That doesn't bother me, because there are things the Church I belong to teaches that I don't agree with.
When Jack Kennedy ran for President, this same discussion came up with his Catholic faith. I think at the end of the day, a voter should look at the Mormon, the Businessman, the Leader, and the Governor and decide if they can vote for Romney or not. If he wins the nomination, compare him to the Democratic field and see which you would rather have running the office.
If there is a candidate out there who agrees with you 100% of the time, be worried. Otherwise, look to the person who most closely represents the man (or woman) you would want running the country.
I also find it interesting that I should write a post about Romney for President, and I get a pretty good number of post discussing his religion.
I only bring up Romney's religion because I believe it will be an issue used against him if he is the Republican nominee.
I absolutely agree that a persons leadership experience should be considered when voting on them for President. I also think that the government can go too far in legislating an individuals morality. Is it the governments role to legislate morality? Whose moral guidelines do you use?
Legislating morality is a very, very difficult task, and it should not be done lightly. However, to some degree, or society does that anyway. The Law has to be backed up with some sort of morals. Otherwise, why make it illegal to sell drugs, or to prostitute. We are a Judeao-Christian nation, so those morals are reflected and should be reflected in our laws.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should go crazy legislating morals, but I think certain things should be legislated against (with drug use being one I would point to as an example).
Why should drug use be legislated against if we don't legislate against alcohol use? Why not just apply the same laws to drug use as we apply to alcohol use?
We do legislate against alcohol use. You can't drink and drive, you have to be over a certain age to by alcohol, and in some places you can't buy it on Sunday. There are even local counties that are entirely "dry". I believe the Jim Bean distillery in Tennessee is in one such county.
I think drug use should be legislated against in the public area. I think you can make a strong argument that certain drugs should be legal in one's home.
Sounds like we're kind of on the same page. Go figure.
Not about the faith thing though. :)
Sorry to come back to such an old post Andy, but my mind keeps coming back to this debate of whether or not a man of faith necessarily possesses a moral compass that an atheist does not.
As an argument against that position I would point to prisons. By percentage, Atheists make up a much smaller percentage of prison inmates in America than they do in the general population. Chritians of course make up the bulk of our prison population.
I think this is a pretty good argument in favor of the idea that pronouncement of faith really has very little to do with possession of a moral compass.
How 'bout a question as a response. If an atheist has a moral compass, what guides it?
A desire to be a productive, accepted, member of a society, community and family.
Within most modern secular societies and communities, the golden rule still applies. Even without religion as a guide, pretty much everyone agrees - don't kill, don't steal, protect the weak, help the unfortunate, etc.
You don't really need the threat of hell fire to know what's right and what's wrong.
Post a Comment