…. that’s where he goes.

I don’t think it is a sin to change your mind. In fact, I think we should have more politicians who are able to think for themselves rather than supporting tired policy (and rhetoric) that is ineffective, outdated or downright wrong (ahem- Iraq). However, I want a president who is willing to stand for what he/she believes in and won’t change their morals if it is politically expedient. I don’t want someone who is the proverbial chaff, blown about by every wind of political doctrine.

So let’s face the facts folks. Mitt has labeled himself a conservative and has done so for a while, that I will grant and that doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is that he is willing to change his views to get elected. Arnold is considered a conservative even though he is all over the map on issues. Sticking to his guns (no pun intended) has only helped his recent popularity. Mitt, on the other hand was someone I would have supported, had he not buckled to political pressure and come up with some stupid story about cloning, that has nothing to do with the issue by the way, to make himself more appealing to the Falwells of America and the conservative right. Here’s what he said during the first debate of this year. Prepare to be stunned and thrilled by this brilliant explanation of why he was suddenly enlightened to the evils of abortion…….(wait for it…..wait for it)

“About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far. It’s a “brave new world” mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind.”

Wow. That just could be the worst excuse for selling your morals to a political party that I have ever heard. He succeeded in using a literary allusion and a buzz-phraze in the same sentence but ended up sounding canned and trite. Nice try at a conversion story, Mitt, but, come on! I’m a little disappointed really. He’s a smart, well-spoken guy, couldn’t he come up with something better than cloning and a Brave New World? What happened to the meaningful stories about your parents pro-choice stance, that story about your aunt? Where did that go and what idiot on your campaign team thought up Brave New World? Whoever it was, fire them quick! Pretty soon you’ll have people labeling children’s books Communist Manifestos (Just kidding, it is a pretty odd book).

Was he pro-choice? There is no argument there, he was pro-choice as late as 2002 when he was running for Governor. He filled out a Planned Parenthood questionnaire with the following responses.

Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES

Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES (Can you Rudy? James, didn’t you say you wouldn’t vote for Guliani because of this same reason?)

In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill.” Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES

There are many more quotes from his time in Massachusetts in both of his campaigns where he made his pro-choice perspective quite clear.

Now that we have established that he was pro-choice, for good reasons, reasons that I agree with, I want to explain why that bothers me.

Few members of the church are brave enough to agree with Roe v. Wade even though it is in perfect agreement with the gospel. I feel the same way about abortion that Mitt used to. It is a moral question for me, not one that I am going to change to fit the needs of a candidate. Mitt didn’t have the spine to do the same thing. He gave up a moral stance to get votes. He’s just another slick politician with overdone hair.

No matter how you twist it, the man was pro-life, or at least pretending to be. Either way, he was putting on a show to get votes. Which is just what his advisor, Michael Murphy has admitted.

In 2005 he fessed up and said “he’s been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.”

What does Mitt stand for? That depends on what will get him elected. Take gay marriage. While I won’t get into the same details as the abortion flop, Mitt did make himself out to in the corner of gays and lesbians. He might not have been forthcoming about what he would/ wouldn’t do but he did want to become governor of Massachusetts and had to convince the voters that he leaned to the left on social issues.

There might be some good reasons to vote for the guy, but none of them have convinced me so far. He might be Mormon, but when you get past all the talk, he’s just another politician who would bend over backwards to serve his party but won’t stand for what he believes if it will hurt him in the polls.

As much fun it is to rail on politics, I realized that it is going to be a long haul until the election next year. Both Romney and Clinton have raised absurd amounts of money which doesn’t portend well.

Folks, it’s gonna get ugly. Real ugly.

Can we call him Moneybags Mitt now?

You know what they say about polls… nonetheless, I thought this was interesting.

Here’s a recent poll that shows Mitt might not be doing as hot as you might like to think. In fact, it shows that Republicans would favor an actor who hasn’t even announced his intention to run over good old Mitty.

Ouch!

Thought I would beat you to the punch.

I might have to start another site if this keeps up.

I could call it ‘Mormons against Mitt’.

One of the biggest reasons that Mitt will have a hard time at his run for prez is that the Republicans have already religionized their party in favor of the Evangelicals who are, as we know, no fans of Mormonism. Two words- Southern baptists. Enough said.

This poll shows that the majority of Evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon in a presidential race. Why does this matter? Because without the Evangelical vote, the Republicans don’t have a chance in ’08. (See! I told you all this mixing of religion and politics would come back to bite the conservatives in the keister!)

In order for Mitt to even have a chance, he has had to try and distance himself from his moderate past and make himself more of a picture of conservatism, even to the point of supporting torture.

Now he is distancing himself from the moderate voters who elected him Governor in the most liberal state in the nation. Was his religion a question then? No. Will it be for the conservative christians and their Biblical Jesus? Yup. Reid has risen to the tops of the Democratic leadership with no whining about his religion, in fact I think it makes him more appealing because Democrats are looking for moral stability in their own party. I think Mitt would have had a chance if he would have stuck to his moderate roots or if he were a liberal. But now, I’m afraid he will be looked at as a goofball by the Dems and as an unacceptable choice by conservatives, no matter how hard he tries to remake himself in the image of the great God of conservatism.

I think a Mormon would have a great shot at being president if he were a Democrat. There is a great appeal for moderate conservatives who would find a lot in common with his conservative background and for Democrats, well we all know they need some moral direction. That’s the great thing about the Democratic part, they are accepting of ALL people, not just rich, white Evangelical Christians. (Low blow! Just kidding!). Seriously, the Mormon thing will be a huge issue, no matter how much we would like to think we live in an enlightened society- there are still millions of idiots out there. Like this guy.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX-9rXkbEbA]

I have no doubts Mitt was a wonderful Bishop and a fantastic Stake Pres. I bet he does his home teaching even in October AND December. But, in a system where you have to remake yourself to fit into the mold of the party, and that party is pinning it’s hopes on the conservative Christians- he doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in Texas.

As for his ‘conversion’ to pro-life, as you called it James, all I have to say is that I think that is a particularly interesting choice of words. I, for one, try not to confuse religion and politics. I didn’t work particularly well for the Church of England and I think it isn’t going so great for the conservatives. When we start thinking about converting ourselves or others to our way of thinking in politics we are going down the wrong road.

“Hi, we are personal representatives of President George Bush. We would love to tell you, and your family, about his plan for us.”