-
Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant
May 24, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats
May 24, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds
May 23, 2013 | 3 comments
-
I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel
May 23, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Issa Recovers
May 22, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
On Monday morning during an interview with Fox News, Mitt Romney gave his most aggressive words yet against Newt Gingrich, showing that he’s now (rightly) concerned about Newt as competition for the Republican nomination.
Among Romney’s barbs:
• When asked about the economy and real estate, Romney turned the question to Freddie Mac, saying that it “caused part of the underpinnings and the collapse that have hurt so many people here in Florida. And of course Newt Gingrich was working for Freddie Mac. He said he was an historian. But he got paid $1.7 million. I don’t believe he was an historian. He was out speaking up Freddie Mac, and that was an enormous mistake and contributed to the crisis that’s here.”
• Romney continued by suggesting Gingrich should turn over his “work product” regarding Freddie Mac: “What was the contract? What did they pay him for? You don’t may someone $1.7 million just to write your history.… Did he write their history or did he instead talk about policy and provide access to people in power?”
• More generally, regarding Gingrich as a “big idea” guy: “The speaker has been working for the last 15 years on K-Street in Washington D.C. It’s a form of influence peddling or lobbying, depending on whose definition you want to use, but basically he’s connecting corporations with government. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just very different from the way he portrays himself as an author of big ideas. Big ideas like Freddie Mac, giving mortgage guarantees to people who couldn’t possibly repay those mortgages. That’s a big idea. I don’t think it’s a very good big idea.”
Clearly the Romney campaign recognizes that the Freddie Mac issue was kryptonite to Gingrich early in the campaign and they’re going to stick with it. The idea that Gingrich was in any way responsible for Freddie Mac’s behavior in the mortgage market is ridiculous and Romney’s attack will leave room for one of Gingrich’s patented outraged responses. On balance, however, this issue remains a real problem for Newt until and unless he can prove that what he did does not fit into the characterization that Romney is providing. And after all the time that Gingrich and others have spent demanding Romney’s tax returns, it will be difficult for the Speaker to argue against divulging the terms of a contract made with a company which was a quasi-governmental entity. By the way, when did the amount Gingrich got paid go from $1.6 million, as Romney’s Super-PAC ads say, to $1.7 million as Romney claimed this morning?
• Romney also asked for the contents of the House ethics investigation of Gingrich: “As you know, the Speaker was the only Speaker in American history to be reprimanded by his own members… and of course he was forced from office; he resigned in disgrace. So let’s look at the full record of what was said as opposed to the sanitized version of the final report. Because you know that if Nancy Pelosi has that record, it’s ultimately going to be in the hands of the president if Newt Gingrich were to become the nominee.”
This is a dangerous road for Romney to go down, perhaps as likely to backfire on him as to damage Gingrich. On the surface, Gingrich’s response will be satisfying: The ultra-partisan House Ethics Committee, led by Nancy Pelosi, heard 84 ethics charges made against Gingrich — all of them made by Democrats — and found him guilty of one charge, which related to the tax status of a course Gingrich taught. There was also a question of whether information provided related to the course was misleading, but Gingrich asserts that the shoddy work was done by a law firm that did him “a great disservice.” Gingrich paid a $300,000 fine that he is characterizing as a reimbursement for the cost of the investigation. Gingrich further claims that he asked House Republicans to vote yes on the reprimand in order to get it over with. In other words, Gingrich is going to turn this debate into reminding voters that his antagonist was Nancy Pelosi, and make himself seem the sympathetic victim of the Wicked Witch of the West.
Or at least he’ll try. Unfortunately for Gingrich, it’s not quite that simple. The Washington Post’s pro-Romney blogger, Jennifer Rubin, as well as the left-leaning Politico are reminding people of Gingrich’s larger ethics issues including involvement in the House banking check-kiting scandal, the latter referring to a 1992 New York Times article which explains Newt’s banking Achilles’ heel while also foreshadowing Newt’s rise to power:
His own 22 overdrafts, including a $9,463 check to the Internal Revenue Service, were the heaviest weapons against him in an anti-incumbent campaign waged by an underfinanced former state senator. After lavishing $1.1 million on the race, Gingrich survived, by 980 votes, and the district is so Republican that he seems a shoo-in in November. If anti-incumbency campaigns like the one waged against him defeat enough Democrats, he may someday achieve his ambition of becoming Speaker of the House.
This issue, more than 84 ethics charges brought by friends of Nancy Pelosi, would seem to have the potential to damage Newt Gingrich and, as the Romney campaign desires, remind people that Gingrich “has more baggage than the airlines.”
• After pounding the Freddie Mac and ethics issues again, Romney added: “We need to understand, by the way, who his clients were in the health care world because he was lobbying for a Medicare bill, a health care bill, that could have significantly benefited some of his clients. If that’s the case, he was not only lobbying and influence peddling, he may have done things that were improper.”
Amusingly, the Fox News anchor, Bill Hemmer, then asked Romney, “On that point, on the debate, do you need to get tougher on Newt Gingrich?” Romney responded, as if forgetting the last 5 minutes of his own words, “I think we need to always be focused on the real target here, which is President Obama” — but even then Romney actually trained his fire in part on Gingrich: “Speaker Gingrich’s success in the last debate or two were because frankly the people who asked him questions asked him softball questions about the president or about himself. He didn’t attack the rest of us on the stage; he attacked either the moderator or the president, and that’s probably the best way to go.”
There’s a backhanded compliment if ever you’ve heard one.
I trust the Gingrich campaign staff are preparing for Mitt Romney’s sharp elbows, which will no doubt be flying during tonight’s debate (9 PM Eastern on NBC) and Thursday’s debate (8 PM Eastern on CNN). If there’s one thing you can say about Gingrich, it’s that when he can properly guess what pitch is coming, nobody hits more home runs. Indeed, one of the hardest to understand aspects of the Republican debates to date is Mitt Romney’s apparent unpreparedness for questions about his income and his tax returns, which even a political amateur would have known were coming. An argument can be made that Romney’s fumbling responses to questions about releasing his tax returns cost him the South Carolina primary. And while Romney’s 2010 tax return and 2011 estimate are due to be released on Tuesday, Romney’s recent promises to release “multiple years” will cause his putting out just two years to generate more questions than answers, doing precisely the opposite of Romney’s stated strategy of wanting to release all of his tax information at one time.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday morning shows Newt Gingrich having jumped 9 points ahead of Mitt Romney in Florida, after Romney was 22 points ahead just eleven days ago. Newt’s strength is among Florida’s most conservative Republicans, with Romney still leading among moderates. That same poll shows 42 percent of Florida Republicans saying that Gingrich is strongest against Barack Obama versus 39 percent believing that of Mitt Romney.
Exit polls in South Carolina showed that Republican voters are intensely focused on beating Obama, far more than they are on having the most conservative candidate. This explains why Romney will focus so intensely on proving to voters that Gingrich’s history makes him unelectable whereas Gingrich will counter that Romney is not bold enough, not enough of a fighter, to beat Barack Obama.
All that said, the poll of Florida voters still shows an expectation of Romney becoming the nominee. As Scott Rasmussen put it, Romney now seems to be the likely nominee rather than the inevitable nominee. If you thought the last two debates were important, just wait until you see the next two.
View all comments (48) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/23/romney-sharpening-his-elbows
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 11:24AM
No, the charge is not "RIDICULOUS" as you claim, and Romney can and will provide examples. Keep deluding yourself that Gingrich is going to skate by on this. Plenty of elderly in Florida WILL associate Gingrich with what Romney puts across about Fannie and Freddie because many have lost big-time in the real estate market there. Gingrich's own colleagues DON'T WANT HIM!! Like I say, I will vote for the pothead Gary Johnson before I cast a vote in November for Newt Gingrich.
RINO Romney| 1.23.12 @ 12:14PM
Romney has already dropped 10 points among independents and 11 points among moderates in just one week. The news articles from Zerohedge, dirtdiggers, the LA Times, Baltimore Sun, and many others have exposed Romney on being an LBO raider, who loaded up companies with debt, made boatloads in consulting fees, and then left the companies deeply in debt, dumped their pension plans onto the taxpayers, all the while getting taxpayer funded corporate welfare and subsidies. As said here: Romney: Corporate Welfare Bum.
And Romney has his own "Solyndra" problem dating back to when he was governor:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....ml?showall
Ross Kaminsky | 1.23.12 @ 12:22PM
I never said Gingrich is going to skate on the Freddie Mac issue. I think it's a very damaging problem for him and I think it's smart of Romney to press it. He just has to press it in a way that doesn't allow Gingrich to portray Romney as wildly exaggerating.
ncatty| 1.23.12 @ 12:33PM
The Freddie Mac deal does bother me. Lets see what he was getting paid for.
Pete| 1.23.12 @ 1:12PM
I think the Fannie, Freddie deal is a non-starter. Tell me Bain would not have been willing to work with them.
As a consultant myself you go where your skills are needed. Recently it was at AIG, one of those companies too big to fail. Does that mean I supported the bail out of AIG? Not hardly. I worked with people who have consulted with Fannie and Freddie. Does that mean I think they are somehow not patriotic? Not hardly.
In fact I don't understand the criticism at all.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.23.12 @ 2:30PM
Pete, without the facts behind you that sounds like blather. You know what blather is don't you? Wells, here's an interesting article about an SEC lawsuit against former Fannie leadership. As the respondents are deposed one can only wonder they will come up with, i.e., will they blather to the authorities? What was Newt's role for 8 years? It certainly wasn't as a historian. Oh well, I should stop blathering.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/p.....index.html
Just two weeks before the crucial presidential Iowa caucuses, Newt Gingrich, the Republican presidential front-runner, found himself again mired by questions about his ties to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae after federal regulators sued six former executives of the two beleaguered lending giants over charges of securities fraud.
The charges came the morning after rivals hammered the former House speaker for his ties to Freddie Mac, the federally backed loan company that, along with Fannie Mae, some conservatives have been blamed for deepening the country’s housing bust.
Gingrich has insisted that he was never a lobbyist for the company, but merely offered his guidance as a consultant and “historian.”
Today’s Securities and Exchange Commission announcement injects another potential talking point in what is already a politically charged discussion in the GOP presidential contest over the government’s housing loan programs.
During Thursday’s debate in Iowa, Representative Michelle Bachmann took issue: “The speaker had his hand out and he was taking $1.6 million to influence senior Republicans to keep the scam going. ... We cannot have as our nominee someone who continues to stand with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,” she said. Bachmann accused Gingrich of influence peddling.
Not true, Gingrich shot back. “I never lobbied under any circumstance.”
While not a registered lobbyist, Gingrich has come under attack for his contracts, extending from 1999 to 2007, with the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, more widely known as Freddie Mac.
The charges against the former executives further draw attention to Gingrich’s ties to institutions so reviled by conservatives, said Tim Hagle, an associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa.
Occam's Tool| 1.23.12 @ 7:56PM
Hey, if they paid me $1.7 million, I'd advise them, too. Please.
Dai Alanye | 1.23.12 @ 3:29PM
"The gingham dog and the calico cat side by side on the table sat."
Looking better and better for my man Santorum if only he can stand aside and let these two egos demolish one another.
Kaye| 1.23.12 @ 11:29AM
Newt has agreed to release his contract. Bye Bye argument. What had romney ever accomplished for conservatism? Where would Conservatism have been in 1993 except for Gingrich?
Mike 3/505| 1.23.12 @ 11:34AM
Romney needs to get a clue. What lost him South Carolina wasn't his lack of aggression towards his fellow republican contenders. It was the public perception that he wouldn't be aggressive enough towards Obama and the Washington establishment...media and politicians.
Regards,
Mike
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 11:34AM
For crying out loud, he was fined for LYING UNDER OATH!! Bye bye argument in your dreams! I will not be satisfied with one Mussolini in exchange for another. Where are Gingrich's solutions? I haven't seen one policy strategy from him to turn this country around, not one. Don't give me 1994-2000 either. That was the HOUSE at large, not Gingrich, who was too busy lining his own pockets and involved in sexual trysts just like Clinton. My PRECIOUS vote only goes so far, and it goes to Johnson if Gingrich is the nominee of the GOP.
NotPropagandized| 1.23.12 @ 12:43PM
How does Johnson figure in this. Didn't he bolt Republican Party to run for the Libertarian nomination?
Mike 3/505| 1.23.12 @ 11:40AM
Sleepy,
Sorry...wrong answer. It was later proven that he didn't lie. He did what anybody does when confronted with BS lawsuits...he settled. Even the IRS says he was right.
A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.
Regards,
Mike
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 11:52AM
He did lie. Read why he agreed to pay the fine, liar.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 11:57AM
I know a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama. In such a situation I don't give a damn.
Dai Alanye | 1.23.12 @ 3:34PM
Good moniker. This guy really is asleep.
Anybody but Obama should be our slogan. I'd vote for Joe Biden if it was our only chance to get Obama out. Remember there'll be appointments to the Supreme Court during the next four years. Do you want to hand over a secure majority to the socialists?
Drek| 1.23.12 @ 12:09PM
Why is Romney demanding records and internal memos, -------------- when as Governor, he ordered that all computers in his executive branch, even the servers, be erased or actually destroyed.
He orders the utter erasure of all internal electronic documentation, but demands documentation be provided by others!
Drek| 1.23.12 @ 12:14PM
Gingrich is accused of being on board the whole global warming bandwagon, yet he testified before Congress, on the record, against Cap and Trade.
Gingrich is accused of ethical violations, when the House ethics accusations were all proven baseless.
Gingrich is accused of Tax violations, yet the IRS, ------------- the IRS, ------------------ exonerates him and his nonprofit of any wrongdoing.
And it just goes on and on, and on.
Bachmann actually accused the guy with close to a perfect score from the pro-life groups of being wanting in purity in regard to abortion.
The guy that purged Jim Wright, then Speaker of the House, is accused by Santorum of a want of vigilance regarding corruption in the House.
And so it goes.
Accusations made, most utterly baseless, but they're endlessly repeated.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 12:15PM
Do you have proof that actually happened, Drek? Even if it did this is a routine procedure in many state and federal workplaces. It happened all the time when my wife was a state worker under the proper guidelines. Whatever the case it doesn't approach the seriousness of being fined $300,000 for lying under oath.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 12:26PM
Romney would be wise to adopt some of Gingrich's loudness and just ape him, even taunt him if need be. Gingrich a paragon of truth? B.S.
Casey Abell| 1.23.12 @ 12:26PM
Russ, you're the Intrade guy. The site now rates Gingrich the almost 60% fave in the FL primary. Romney still gets the nod as the GOP nominee, but with noticeably lower numbers than before SC. Gingrich is now up to nearly a 30% chance for the nom.
Meanwhile, Gingrich's rise has also produced one other effect: Intrade now rates Obama a pretty solid favorite for reelection. The bettors don't think Newt can beat him. My guess is they're right.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 12:31PM
A vote for Gingrich is academic. It is simply a vote for Obama.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 12:33PM
I will admit that Gingrich has the BIG MO going into Florida, and I wouldn't be surprised if he wins there. I just refuse to join the hypnotized bandwagon.
rightasrain| 1.23.12 @ 1:01PM
"Somnolence" refuses to be hypnotized---good one. Kidding aside, I agree that Newt is always one utterance from disaster. I refuse to join his bandwagon as well. But I hope this drama continues to play out. Let Romney prove he's worthy of our votes and electable. SC has shown that Romney's belief that it's his turn is woefully mistaken. He could never out-Newt Newt in the fake anger department, be he can and must display some passion.
Mike 3/505| 1.23.12 @ 12:45PM
"A vote for Gingrich is academic. It is simply a vote for Obama."
Gingrich is the only one who has a real chance tombeat Obama. He is the only one who won't wimp out and try to be a gentleman. He is the only one who is not afraid tomcall Obama and his ilk what they truly are...evil and BAD for America and Americans.
martin j smith| 1.23.12 @ 12:45PM
You know I do not care what anyone in Politico or WaPo think about anything . Romney better not use these MSMz are a basis of anything. And a negative sharp attack on Gingrich in my view will hurt him and help Gingrich. You know why? Because the SC audience in the debate showed what voters want from a Republican Candidate--some one who fights Obama and the MSMz( since they are the same )--Those who support Romney better get it out to him that a vast majority of voters want some one who actually wants to be a strong Leader against Socialism and Obama in particular--not some namby pamby like GWB or John McCain or Romney so far. Let him out do Newt against the MSM and Obama then he would have a chance. Play it any other way and he will lose.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.23.12 @ 12:46PM
Gingrich will still have a problem if he releases the contract. He should authorize the release of his work product.
There are several articles that state Newt was on Capitol Hill working behind the scenes to keep Fannie/Freddie out of the spotlight.
If Newt's output was a 120 page report it's going to look like he was a corporate raider on the public treasury.
Pete| 1.23.12 @ 1:17PM
What blather.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.23.12 @ 2:19PM
Blather is good when it is truthful.
NotPropagandized| 1.23.12 @ 12:48PM
Children, children! Please get a hold of yourself. Now let's everybody think of something nice about the one you're berating.
I'll vote for anyone who can stop Obama's and Valerie Jewett's tyrannical coup d' etat. Right now the ranking is Gingrich (warrior), Santorum (righteous one), Romney (elite one), Ron Paul (Fed Buster).
Pete| 1.23.12 @ 1:15PM
The craziest thing was hearing Karl Rove criticize Gingrich for Freddie and Fannie. This is the Karl Rove who worked for the President who was ultimately responsible for both. Talk about hypocrisy. Then Rove also supported the Bush bailouts and TARP. And who was president when sub prime mortgages brought down the housing industry? And who was the one appointing Greenspan. And who are the guys favoring Romney?
Dai Alanye | 1.23.12 @ 3:38PM
A strange comment. Both Bush and McCain attempted to rein in the housing crisis. Freddy and Fannie were all Democrat at all times.
Al Adab| 1.23.12 @ 1:17PM
Instead of sharpening his elbows, Romney needs to realize that his consistent 30% showings may get him a plurality here and there and maybe even the nomination, but it will not serve to defeat Obama. Once again the GOP will saddle itself with an unmotivating candidate a certain road to defeat. Mr. Romney should put his country ahead of his ego, send his 30% to a candidate who can defeat Obama and quit the race.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 1:22PM
So I assume you believe Gingrich can defeat Obama. Really?
Drek| 1.23.12 @ 5:03PM
Yes.
I do believe that.
I believe the present favourable/unfavourables will dramatically alter once he becomes the nominee.
When the incumbent has 10% plus REAL unemployment, and the incumbent has 20% plus REAL underemployment, when during that same incumbents tenure roughly one out of every five Democrats has ceased identifying as a Democrat, --------- when all that is factored in, -------------- YES, I do believe that Gingrich can prevail.
Without Chamberlain preceding him, Churchill would never have become First Minister of the Realm.
Without Carter demonstrating to a finality his utter incompetence, Reagan would never have been elected.
And now we come to Gingrich, who otherwise might not ordinarily get the real consideration his record deserves. BUT with that idiot Obama preceding him, with that crucial variant thrown into the mix, then I do believe that Gingrich can be the next President of the United States.
The left has produced the natural recoil to their leftist and radical agenda. And that recoil, that response, that healthy and vigorous response is not satisfied with a pandering timid soul, such as Romney.
That recoil demands a full response.
And that's Gingrich.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 1:28PM
RightasRain, you are right. One of Mitt's staff needs to give him a swift kick this morning, and drill, drill, drill into him "No More Mr. Nice Guy" in pointing out the percentage of pure crap that Gingrich spews. Mix it up and out-finesse Newt tonight with POLICY PROPOSALS. Be sure to invoke the name OBAMA every time it is your turn at least twice in EACH turn.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 1:31PM
BTW if Romney does have a poor performance tonight it would be idiotic for his supporters to panic and start calling Jindal, Jeb Bush, etc. to propose a brokered convention. Let me tell you this: I won't vote for Mitch Daniels either. Why? This is a guy who feels that he has to support his mentor, Dick Lugar, over proven conservative Dick Mourdock in the May primary. Lugar SUPPORTED KAGAN AND SOTOMAYER FOR SCOTUS! Say NO to My Man Mitch!
Dai Alanye | 1.23.12 @ 3:40PM
Quite true! Lugar has been a menace to conservative politics during all his time in Congress.
bill| 1.23.12 @ 1:40PM
GOP Dream Team:
President: Newt Gingrich
VP : Rick Perry
AG : Rudy Giuliani
Secretary of State : Rick Santorum
Treasury : Paul Ryan
DHS : Joe Arpaio
Commerce: Mitt Romney
The "Freedom March" has begun. Please join us!
Dai Alanye | 1.23.12 @ 3:41PM
Delegate to the United Nations: RonPaul
Al Adab| 1.23.12 @ 3:42PM
That is not a bad idea. I always thought a contrarian approach to appointments made sense.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 3:36PM
I might change my mind if a brokered convention was to pick Susanne Martinez. Now that IS a candidate I'm convinced would win in the fall.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 4:46PM
Even if Gingrich wins Florida he will more than likely be short over 500 votes come Convention time. Look it up and see how I come to that conclusion. It will be Romney and Paul most likely.
Drek| 1.23.12 @ 4:54PM
Why not ask yourself what happens when the bulk of Romney's delegates derive from states the GOP isn't likely to carry in the Fall.
Then ask yourself what happens when Gingrich's delegates mostly derive from states that have recently provided the bulk of the Republican's Electoral College votes.
Then ask yourself what a wise and prudent party would do when one candidate reflects the desire of those states they need, and the other candidate reflects the desire of states they haven't carried since Reagan.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 5:01PM
Like I say, I prefer Gov. Martinez over any one at the moment.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 5:16PM
Sorry, Gingrich in the most remote sense, doesn't approach the statesmanship or political skills of Reagan or Churchill. The best comparison would be to Henry VIII, even though Callista converted Newt to Catholicism after their tryst.
somnolence| 1.23.12 @ 5:36PM
Whatever the case the GOP will need the West Coast states, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and New York to win convincingly. A razor-thin election doesn't bode well for the party. Ms. Martinez can bring in Hispanics, is highly intelligent, and an outsider.
Tim Finley | 1.23.12 @ 8:25PM
Jed really showed his ignorance tonight when he stated that Americans won't take a person's religious belief into consideration when electing a President. That depends on what the nominee believes. A Mormon cannot beat Obama once the Democrats begin to reveal what Romney believes. Mormons believe: Mormons believe that the god of this universe is a being composed of flesh and blood who at one time lived on another planet (or in another galaxy) where, by following their rules, he became one of their many gods. He was then sent to this Earth to be our god, accompanied by his goddess wife.
This god produces spirit children who grow and mature, but whose spirit remains in Heaven waiting for a home here on Earth. When a baby is born here on earth, that spirit, which was waiting in Heaven, enters the body of the new baby, but the memory of that spirit is masked. That is mankind, as we know it.
They also believe that because we are creatures of sin, we needed a savior god, so god came to earth, had sex with Mary and went home. Her child was Jesus. The Mormons believe this was a plan worked out prior to the conception between this god and Jesus. They also believe that Jesus was a spiritual brother to Lucifer, who became jealous and rebelled, then convinced a large portion of the spirits in Heaven to side with him and oppose god.
Here is a big factor: They do not believe in the Trinity. They will lead you to believe they do until you back them into a corner, and then the truth prevails. Be very careful here!
They also put a lot of faith in a man named Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who supposedly was called upon by god as a messenger. There were gold tablets involved, but these apparently were only seen by Mr. Smith and were lost somewhere along the way.
There are many, many differences within the Christian community that probably can be justified because historical records are just that – historical records. But most Christians have the same basic beliefs, and also an innate brotherhood as Christians. You may turn on a Christian radio station and hear ministers from various denominations preaching various doctrines, but you will not hear Mormons on those stations because they are not considered Christians, by Christians.
If Jed doesn't think this will be a factor, then Jed is not the political junkie that he claims he is.