Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008/Archive 1

Religion

This page is completely inadequate if it doesn't discuss the Mormon factor. Whether it really turns out to be important or not, many people currently think that it might be important, so it's deserving of some mention. AnonMoos 18:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

National Public Radio's Morning Edition is running a piece devoted exclusively to this issue right now... AnonMoos 11:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney and Mormon Religion on Front Page of New York Times 2/8/07 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/us/politics/08romney.html?

Smithsonian Institutes Standard Reply on the Book of Mormon as true: http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html

This will probably be the most significant issue in the Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign and should have a section here.

Soteriology 16:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Morris, Linda (2005-07-21). "'Academic falls foul of Mormons'". The Sydney Morning Herald.Soteriology 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Soteriology, what is the purpose of the above link? Bobman52 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon's premise is that Jewish people sailed to the Americas and settled the continent. Mitochondrial DNA testing has shown without a shadow of a doubt, that the Indians of North and South America came from Siberia, migratiging across the Bering Strait. Dr. Simon Southerton was a Mormon scientist that discovered the "smoking gun". Combined with the Smithsonian Institution's assessment of the scientific validity of the Book of Mormon, proves that the Book of Mormon was "made up" by Joseph Smith. I personally want a President that has a firm grasp of reality, not someone that believes in the Book of Mormon.

Soteriology 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What does the Smithsonian's position on the Book of Mormon have to do with Mitt Romney's campaign? RichardDavies 03:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

People want and need a President that is firmly based in reality. If Mitt Romney believes that the Book of Mormon is True, then the American people should know this. Although the Mormon church has many positive aspects to the religion, reality about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is just not one of them. The American people want to know that the Mormons believe that you are "cursed" with dark skin. Try having a conversation with a Mormon about his geneology that goes back 100,000 years. Will he admit that he is a direct descendent of an African?

In the past, FARMS has worked diligently to keep things confusing. It's not so confusing. The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the Archeology of the Americas. It is a fabrication. And Josepth Smith was the fabricator. It's that simple. There's a huge elephant in the living room, and it's not George Bush.

There's thousands of holes in the Mormon ship and it's beyond the scope of this page to address them. So its about the bottom line. Does Mitt Romney believe the Book of Mormon to be "the truest of all books". And if so, knowing that the Book of Mormon can be summarized by war after war after war. And knowing that the Smithsonian Institution of the U.S. Government says that it is not true, do you want to give this man the power to launch nuclear weapons?

Soteriology 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Soteriology - If you can't put "The Book of Mormon is, without a doubt, false, and thus the Mormon church is also false" in their own articles, then such statements certainly should not be used as the basis of something to place in this article. All reasonable criticisms of the Mormon church are reasonably disputed. If you don't believe me, see http://fairwiki.org. They even have an article for the Smithsonian report specifically, and also other things you have mentioned. By the way, the Smithsonian did NOT specifically say that Book of Mormon is not true. Anyway, my real point here is, like I said, if you can't say that the Mormon Church or the Book of Mormon are undoubtfully false in their own articles, don't use that as the basis of something in this one because you can't just call it a fact if it is not widely regarded nor completely provable as one. If you do really believe that the Book of Mormon is without a doubt false, and that this is an absolute fact, then should you not also place that in the article on the Book of Mormon?

It is my opinion, however, that what is currently in the article is acceptable- that since the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Church is disputed, that it could cause some people to dislike Romeny because they believe that the the Mormon Church is false and/or has bizarre teachings, and use this to judge Romney himself. Bobman52 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to this but I don't mind throwing down some text to see if it sticks. Please give me a hand and mercilously edit my input in this section. I don't have sources top of mind but I know they're nearby. Powerlad 02:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Answers to Soteriology

Okay if you whole heartedly hate the book of mormon answer me this

If Joseph Smith really did make up the book of mormon how would a US farm boy with no education no this

The Book of Mormon begins in a well-known location, Jerusalem, in 600 B.C. The book of First Nephi, the first book in the volume, describes the actions of Lehi and his family in leaving Jerusalem before its destruction, following the counsel of the Lord, and wandering through the wilderness for several years before embarking on a transoceanic voyage to somewhere in or near Central America. Several hints are found in the text that provide information about the journey through the Arabian Peninsula--information which proves to provide powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Following the exodus of Lehi and his group from Jerusalem, they passed near the Red Sea, traveled "south-southeast" (1 Nephi 16:13), roughly parallel to the Red Sea or near its borders (1 Nephi 2:5, 1 Nephi 16:14), until they reached Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34), where Ishmael was buried. (Ishmael was the father of a family that fled Jerusalem with Lehi's family, whose daughters became wives to Lehi's sons.) There was considerable mourning at Nahom. After a while, they traveled eastward (1 Nephi 17:1) until they reached a place they called Bountiful (1 Nephi 17:5) on the coast of the Arabian peninsula, described as rich, green garden spot with trees, abundant fruit, water, honey, and a mountain. At this wonderful site they stayed at least long enough to construct a ship from the abundant timber. Metal obtained from ore was also used to make tools.

The description of Lehi's journey through the desert has been attacked in anti-Mormon literature. Finding a garden spot on the coast of the Arabian peninsula was laughable and was laughed at in the 1800s, because nobody knew of a place that could come anywhere close to being a candidate for Lehi's Bountiful. Indeed, recent anti-Mormon books continue to mock the possibility of a place like Bountiful existing. "The Arabian desert does not have luscious garden spots: Joseph Smith blew it. Case closed." Today we are in a much better position to assess Lehi's journey. It comes as no surprise to me that the journey described in the Book of Mormon now has substantial support behind it.

No garden spots in the Arabian Peninsula? Enjoy these scenes from the coast of Oman, used with kind permission from the official site for the Ministry of Information of the Sultanate of Oman, Omanet.om (that's right: it's dot "om", not "com"). The original, larger photos are in their beautiful photogallery. To access it, go to their site and click on "gallery" and then "tourism," and then click through their photos. Amazing views! Also see the photogallery at ExploreOman.com, and my post on Oman photos at my blog, Mormanity.

After rain in Dhofar, near a candidate site for Bountiful (Wadi Sayq). Note the trees. A view in Salalah, another candidate region for Bountiful in Oman.

First, an analysis of the ways of the desert Arabs shows remarkable consistency with the actions taken by Lehi's group and with the language and metaphors used by Lehi as he spoke to his family while traveling in the desert (well covered in Hugh Nibley's Lehi in the Desert). His general path along the Red Sea also follows what are now known to correspond with the ancient frankincense trails in Arabia, which were major trade routes. (See an online map at Latter-day.com of the proposed route, or a group of maps at NephiProject.com.) And, as discussed elsewhere on this page, an excellent candidate location has been found for the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman--so excellent and amazing, that critics will be ignoring this issue for years to come.

But thanks to the explorations of the Astons in Yemen and Oman, and more recently the work of George Potter (the force behind the Nephi Project--see www.nephiproject.com), we now know much more. As the Astons show in their book, the many details of Lehi's journey in the Book of Mormon can be given solid plausibility based on modern discoveries. For example, the Astons show that there is indeed an ancient site called Nehem that is south-southeast of Jerusalem which was on the frankincense trail and has an ancient tradition of being a place for burial and mourning. Ancient tombs are still abundant in that area. The name Nehem/Nahom ("nhm"--which can also be rendered "Nihm") is a rare place name--with the only known site in the Arabian peninsula being at a place consistent with the Book of Mormon account. Along with detailed documentation and references, the Astons' book includes a photograph of the 1976 Royal Geographical Society map--apparently from the University of Sana'a in Yemen--showing Nehem as a significant burial site in the right place to agree with the Book of Mormon description of Nahom. The existence of this site was not known to LDS scholars until a few years ago and certainly could not have been known to Joseph Smith. (By the way, the Semitic name Nahom can refer to mourning and consolation, and may also refer to groaning and complaining, giving it special significance in Nephi's account. See 1 Nephi 16:35.)

Some critics have argued that references to Nahom/Nehem/Nihm in writing could be traced no earlier than about 900 A.D., not to 600 B.C. That argument lost it basis with a recent discovery of an artifact dating to the sixth or seventh century B.C. bearing the tribal name of "Nihm." S. Kent Brown describes the find (note that I have simply left out several Semitic markings in the names below that I cannot type with ANSI characters):

"A German archaeological team under the leadership of Burkard Vogt has been excavating the Baran temple in Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom that lies about 70 miles due east of modern Sana, the capital of Yemen. (It is likely that the queen of Sheba began her journey to visit King Solomon from Marib.) Among the artifacts uncovered at the temple, the excavators turned up an inscribed altar that they date to the seventh or sixth centuries B.C., generally the time of Lehi and his family. A certain "Biathar, son of Sawad, son of Nawan, the Nihmite" donated the altar to the temple. the altar has been part of a traveling exhibit of artifacts from ancient Yemen...."

OKAY NOW ABOUT DNA of the book of mormon Contrary to anti-Mormon claims, DNA evidence does not refute the Book of Mormon. The issue requires more analysis than I wish to fit on this page, so I have a separate lengthy page on the issue at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml. (I am happy to report that the Nov. 16, 2003 version of that essay that I converted to a PDF file has been posted on the LDS.org Web site at http://www.lds.org/newsroom/files/jeff_lindsay_dna.pdf--also see other resources on this topic on one of their "Mistakes in the News" pages.) In my article, I point out that there are genes found in Native Americans that are also found in Jews, including mitochondrial DNA haplotype X (found among some Israelis and Europeans) and a Y chromosome haplotype called "1C". These genes can also be found in Asia, and so don't prove that people from the Middle East came to the Americas--but that possibility most certainly is NOT excluded by the DNA evidence. Other data may point more directly to Middle Eastern origins for some of the many genes in the Americas, including an analysis of ancient skulls from the Americas and HLA genes. But even without the discovery of such evidence or of the possibly relevant DNA haplotypes, a proper understanding of what the Book of Mormon actually says and what the scientific data actually say rapidly leads one to the conclusion that the DNA-based attacks on the Book of Mormon are without merit. The scientific data may challenge some popular misinterpretations of the Book of Mormon, but they do not challenge the text itself. For details, see "Does DNA evidence refute the Book of Mormon?"

In spite of the popular "Asia only" paradigm for Native American origins, evidence for ancient transoceanic contact exists and the Bering Strait theory appears to be unable to explain the origins of all ancient Americans. I discuss transoceanic contact and the Bering Strait in my page on the Smithsonian Institution's 1996 Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon.

Every journalist with a grasp on the Presidential campaign is aware of the Mormon issue with Mitt Romney. The Smithsonian Institution information is a key component of the distrust of Mormons. Evangelical Christians don't believe the Book of Mormon is true, less alone "scripture". This information is very relavant to this article. Soteriology 13:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Quit parading around acting like the Smithsonian thing is absolute irrefutable evidence here. In fact, since you don't seem to be obliged to actually look up such things, so I took the liberty of finding one such refutal for you: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/refute.htm . You can find more if you just look. Given the fact that whether or not the Smithsonian statement disproves the Book of Mormon is greatly disputed, it really doesn't belong here as something to discredit Mitt Romney. Bobman52 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to the archiving of this section. I agree with some of it, but it doesn't have much to do with Romney and his run for President.Orangemarlin 21:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wait it out untill the whole Talk page gets archived. No hurry. -- Yellowdesk 05:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, while all of this is interesting and all, I really don't think it's that relevant enough where it can justify page long posts. I understand that a lot of people have various perspectives on the Church, but that doesn't necessitate gigantic discussions on pages other than the Church topic. (Also, why're there two different talk sections on Romney's religion?) Jwuthe2 04:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Romney is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormon). Many of his beliefs supporting marriage between a man and a woman and on the importance of the family in society fall in line with the Church's teachings on the family (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World). A February 8, 2007 National Public Radio article highlights 6 Polls from national news agencies showing Romney's Mormon beliefs could be an issue in 2008.

Romney may face fears that a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will take commandments from the president of the church who is regarded as a living prophet. On Fox News Romney said, "America has a political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and a constitution, above all others. And there's no question that I make that my primary responsibility." Mike Otterson, the spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said, "The suggestion that a Mormon leader would dictate policy to a President Romney is absurd, I can't imagine any president that would allow that." During the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, similar allegations were made that a Roman Catholic would take orders from the Pope.

Some commentators have questioned Romney's judgment on the basis that anyone who subscribes to what they consider bizarre teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has faulty judgment. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many vocal opponents, and rumors and legends exist about its supposedly outlandish doctrines (see Criticism of Mormonism and Anti-Mormonism). During a fundraiser in Utah, Romney addressed such concerns by saying: "My guess is as they get to know me better, there will be other faults that they find more troubling." The Mormon church banned polygamy in 1890, and those who practice polygamy are members of the fundimentalist Mormon church. There is no evidence that Romney is affiliated with that church or supports it.

Why America is Concerned with a Mormon President

Is the Book of Mormon True?

Main article: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

The Smithsonian Institution, a primary scientific institute of the U.S. Government, issues a standard response about the Book of Mormon regarding its scientific authenticity. They state "Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of this book."

Are Mormons Racist?

Main article: Blacks and Mormonism

The first reference in Latter Day Saint writings describing dark skin as a curse and mark from God refers to Ancient Americans, rather than blacks. The Book of Mormon, dictated in the late 1820s, states the following about Lamanites, supposed ancestors of some tribes of Native Americans:

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21, emphasis added)

Mormon Scriptures are full of statements that equate goodness and being of fair and white skin..The teachings of the Mormons about blacks are most specifically related to Blacks and the Priesthood

[I made this paragraph bold because it applies to a great many discussions on this page, not just the racism stuff] Why is the discussion page entertaining an argument about whether the LDS Church is a racist organization? Is there any evidence whatsoever that Mitt Romney personally is racist? If not then this discussion amounts to nothing more than attempted Mormon-bashing. The internet is full of more appropriate places for such discussion, but here it merely needlessly clutters a discussion page that could otherwise be useful in the editing of the related article.

Homosexuality and Mormonism

Main article: Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers homosexuality or homosexual behavior to be sinful just as adultery and fornication are considered to be sinful. Homosexual desire when dwelled on is also viewed as sinful. The LDS church encourages its members not to "feed any such tempted desire."

The LDS Church has actively opposed efforts to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions. LDS doctrine holds that heterosexual marriage is one of many requirements for entry into the "highest degree of glory" of the Celestial Kingdom, the highest of the three heavens mentioned by Paul in the New Testament. Marriage between a man and a woman is not only required but is considered an essential part in the so named heaven being that family(nuclear family) is believed to be the fundamental unit of society in this life and in heaven.

The church believes homosexuality to be a problem which is destructive to families and to individuals. Members who experience these "problems" are counseled to receive guidance and help from their family, bishop, or presiding authority. It is also considered as serious as adultery and fornication because Mormons believe all three are difficult to give up, undermine the family, and are sins of which one must repent.

In order to give a more clear view on the LDS view of same-sex marriage; the current church president(Gordon B. Hinckley) said in a 2004 interview with Larry King the following...

"Well, we're not anti-gay. We are pro-family. Let me put it that way. And we love these people and try to work with them and help them. We know they have a problem. We want to help them solve that problem." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/26/lkl.01.html)

Soteriology 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Political positions section

A discussion can be found for establishing the section at Talk:Mitt Romney#This page lacks personal political beliefs. The conclusion was that it will save a lot of future angst and edit wars to name the section Political positions. Here are several reasons for returning to that name, from the recently re-named "Political Platform"

• Romney has been developing his publicly stated views since before the 1994 Massachusetts campaign for U.S. Senator.
• His views have changed over time, and the context of those changing views is an important part of his biography, life, political career, and for making a judgment about his decisions, chracter and his current political campaign--all of which will be of interest during the current campaign for president.
• The term "Campaign platform" in many ways narrows the topic to one devoid of personal history, political context and policy development, or background, and implies silence about those topics for which he has (or has had) views, but which are not espoused as part of the campaign.
• A reason for not naming it "Personal beliefs" is that this a less than public category, and the difference between Romney's personal beliefs and his political views the likely subject of poor documention, speculative sourcing, and future edit wars.

For these reasons, I am returning the section name to the original name, Political positions.

-- Yellowdesk 04:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

HOW RUDE! Just kidding :)! I actually didn't like the name I switched it to whenever I switched it. Your points are very correct and I agree. Thanks, Chupper 05:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Abortion Section

• Changed "Abortion" to "Pre-Natal Life" as to encompass both abortion and stem-cell research positions.

Added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.82.59 (talk • contribs) 05:34, February 26, 2007 via this edit. See: Special:Contributions/76.177.82.59

Links to "X for Romney" fan sites and web pages

• Such web pages can be easily found via Google
• Generally any link of this nature fails to measure up to the policies described in:
  • Wikipedia:External links,
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight.
• There will be somewhere between 100 and 10,000 "X for Romney" web pages before this campaign is over.

For these reasons, I've reverted this edit by Cpbronco.

-- Yellowdesk 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Tellefsen comment removal

Tom Tellefsen is a Mitt Romney support and invited guest to first fund-raiser. Of course he is going to make glowing comments about the candidate. This is Wikipedia, not a press release.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/08/mitt_the_money_man.html

Soteriology 04:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ford and Nazis

I've removed the line about people finding the Ford museum controversial because of Henry Ford's alleged anti-semitism. It's irrelevant to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. This information is well covered in the Henry Ford article.

Powerlad 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it irrelvant? If Hillary Clinton had annouced her candidacy in front of the headquarters of NARAL wouldn't it be relevant to her campaign article to note that some religious conservatives objected to the venue?129.133.90.64 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found a more relevant source for the anti-semitism story. I'll propose new text.

Powerlad 16:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree with Powerlad. The first thing that went through my mind when reading the lead paragraph was "Am I reading the right article????" It really needs to be removed. If someone has an EXTREME desire to leave it in, put it lower in the article. It certainly doesn't summarize any topics in the rest of the article, as it stands now. See: WP:LEAD Chupper 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, exactly which portion of the article does it belong? Since, the lead is supposed to be only a summary of the material below, then perhaps the section that mentions Romney's announcement should be deleted altogether -- or moved down.129.133.90.64 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing that bugs me most about this are the references you have linked. First is that "Nation" article from 7 years ago that doesn't have anything to do with the current controversy, but is background that would be more appropriate on the Henry Ford page. Second is an op-ed from a newspaper in Israel that only tangentially refers to the original complaint. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=51345&contrassID=2&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

What was wrong with the reference I posted from the Associated Press? I think it's important that if we're going to even acknowledge this mini-controversy that we provide the factual context that there isn't widespread complaint from a broad base of Jewish americans. There is a complaint from a political opposition group with Jewish members. They don't represent a non-partisan Jewish constituency, they represent the Democratic constituency. This will probably boil down to be a political tempest in a teapot being manufactured by that organization, and it doesn't appear to have legs in the press. I admit my personal bias, but I'm trying my best to compromise with all the stakeholders here so we have a neutral encyclopedic article, neither for nor against, but simply expository of the facts. The fact is that this one group lodged a complaint about Romney's choice of venue. Let's leave it at that.

Powerlad 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Jewish, a Democrat, don't particularly like associating with Mormons, loved reading Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, wouldn't drive a Ford if it were given to me for free, drive BMW's and Mercedes (despite what those companies did for the Holocaust), and would love to watch Romney trip a million times, but this is one of THE dumbest stories I've ever seen in my life. Orangemarlin 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured this one would die on the vine over time, but that week it was in the news. I'm trimming the announcement section since the "Nazi" connection seems well covered under the controversies section. Powerlad 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a new section - Controversies

It appears the time has arrived for gaffes and controversies to have a home. What should the section be named? I'll propose

• Controversies

Improvements or crticism invited. -- Yellowdesk 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good name to me. Have we considered creating a Mitt Romney controversies article? I noticed Hillary Clinton has one. Chupper 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No -- an article is premature, since the campaign is now weeks old, since the end of the Romney term as Governor. (And H.Clinton has had a long political life in very ublic view--not so for Romney).-- Yellowdesk 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Supporters and Opponents

Looking for a better name for the section entitled: "Supporters and Opponents"

• Many Republicans merely do not support Romney, but are not against him in an opponent way.
  
• Many Democrats are "opponents." and it makes no sense to attempt a list.
  
• The Republicans listed in the subsection entitled "oppponants" may well be better described as "supporting someone else."

Comments? -- Yellowdesk 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not break off the section into its own page? Over the campaign, more supporters are sure to accumulate and there is already a lengthy list. However, I don't think it's necessary for an "opponents" section. There are sure to be many people who will endorse another candidate over Romney, and it's not critical to include them on the Romney page. They should be included on the presidential campaign page of the person whom they are endorsing. - PoliticalJunkie 20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Endorsements, if anything. This article shouldn't list every small-town mayor who endorses him, much less every single person who supports him. Of course, then we would have to decide which endorsements are major/notable. An "opponents" section is silly. It might be best just to have a link to whatever official Romney website is keeping track of his endorsements (assuming there is one).-Fagles 21:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions or critique of a name for a separate page? The best I can come up with look awkward:
-- Yellowdesk 18:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• List of Mitt Romney's Notable endorsers
• List of Notable endorsers of Mitt Romney

Maybe this? - PoliticalJunkie 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• List of Notable Endorsements - Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008

---

For the moment, I renamed the major section on the page to List of Notable Supporters, and removed references to opponents. We'll see if that works for a while. I expect in not so long, the list will get pushed to its own (as yet un-named) page. -- Yellowdesk 01:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't think this material deserves to be in WP at all. If there are some really notable or surprising ones, or a referenced stat that "21 of 29 Republican governors have endorsed X", sure, but otherwise this really isn't encylcopedic at all. And what would the eventual GOP nominee's article look like? He'll have literally hundreds of endorsements, all essentially meaningless except maybe for a few notable Dems or independents. Wasted Time R 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the general description of his endorsements in Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2008#Endorsements is appropriate and fine; there's no need to have the later long list, which takes on the air of a campaign brochure. Wasted Time R 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm favorable to that view. It will mean, though, that the prose section on supporters will be subject to more efforts to add to it. I note that even the Romney campaign site doesn't make it easy to comprehensively know in list form the names of prominent or notable people that have stepped forward in support. -- Yellowdesk 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding an external link that covers all congressional endorsements. For example, http://hill6.thehill.com/endorsements-2008.html. - PoliticalJunkie 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I deleted " (not counting McCain's endorsement of himself)" from the list of endorsements. The list never included a total list of Republican senators thus the deleted statement has no place in the actual section. Also, a candidate cannot endorse himself. --Stjetters (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Split out 'Political positions' into separate article?

I suggest the current Political Positions section be split out into a separate Political views of Mitt Romney article. This would follow the current practice being done for many other 2008 presidential candiates — see Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Political views of Barack Obama, Political views of Rudy Giuliani, Political views of John McCain, Political views of Mike Gravel, etc. Wasted Time R 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• No need at this time. The section is not overwhelming the article, yet. Keeping the section within the article will obtain more attention from more editors and more rapidly improve the content.

Of the examples cited, several are poorly researched, lacking a history in development of, or changing views of the subject, or poorly supported by foot-noted references; in my view they suffer because they were too early split off into stand-alone articles. The Political views of Mike Gravel should be folded into the Mike Gravel page, as it laughably cites only the Gravel campaign as a source. Fairly good is Political views of John McCain. That article was in good shape BECAUSE it lived (until March 3, 2007) as a complete section of a more comprehensive page that had the attention of a lot of editors. It's interesting that the Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton fails to even convert the in-line citations into footnotes. Poor form. For now, leave the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Political positions in on the campaign page until there's a reason to change it. -- Yellowdesk 15:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. For the record, Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton is over a year old (a lifetime in Wikipedia!) and dates back to before when the footnote reference form became widely used. And it's a lot of work to do the conversion correctly! The main article was done but not all the subarticles. Wasted Time R 15:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney article stalled too, halfway through its conversion to footnotes, using <ref> tags. -- Yellowdesk 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I notice that an article, Political views of Mitt Romney article was just created, splitting the "political positions" section out of Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, with this edit

I am against creating such a page, for now, for the following reasons:

1. The political positions section is not overwheliming the sparse Mitt Romney campaign page.
2. It is not an all that well developed section yet.
3. I believe that the political positions section will be more rapidly developed when it is a part of an actively visited and edited page, rather than as a stand-alone page.
4. I think all of the various "political views" articles are mis-named. "Views" implies speech only, and many political positions can be seen in the actions of the subject individuals that are contrary to their words. "Views" neglects this aspect of political life, that "positions" does not. Hence being "consistent" with other poorly concieved or poorly implemented articles carries little weight with me.

All of the other similar "political views" pages are in poor shape, except the Clinton and McCain versions. Those two were well developed as a consequence of being a part of an actively visited and edited biography page before being split out. See: (McCain, split out March 3, 2007 ), (Clinton: split out Feb 5, 2006.

I am inclined to restore the original section in the "campaign" article, and make the new "positions" article a redirect back to the campaign article. Tell me why I should not do so. -- Yellowdesk 04:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yellowdesk, I must apologize for not consulting the discussion page first. I also appreciate your well-stated arguments above. However, I will make my case as I think there are justifiable reasons for keeping the page separated.

1. you make interesting points about the quality of the other "political view" pages, but I am not sure I agree with your thesis that the lack of activity is solely because they were split out. However, you may be correct and if the following arguments are not compelling it is reason enough to revert the separation.
2. In my view having the political views as separate pages seems to be a much cleaner way to capture these thoughts. I do not agree with your position that the information didn't overwhelm the campaign page.
3. There is already a campaign page, a personal Mitt Romney page, and Governorship of Mitt Romney page. The political views of Mitt Romney are related to all three of these pages and thus the information, IMHO, is best linked by having it on a separate page not as anchor points in an existing article.
4. I feel the campaign page is best left to information about the campaign, its plans, its personnel, its strategy, its history, etc. His political views/positions are separate from the details of the campaign, again IMHO.
5. We are very early in the campaign contest and thus it seems to me we are destined to have so much information as to require this information to be split eventually.
6. As to your position about "views" vs "position". This is an insightful comment but I believe it makes more of an argument for renaming these pages from "political views of..." to "political positions of..." rather than an argument to bring the pages back together into the campaign pages. Since you point to the Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton page as reasonably developed, I will note that in at least one occasion on that page the editors have included items beyond "speeches" such as her vote in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001.

Regardless of the quality, splitting out the political views appears to be an emerging standard. Thus, I wonder whether regressing is good step. Rather, it seems to me that we need to find finding the best possible page names and focus energy on improving the political view pages. However, if you do not find these arguments compelling, I will not be offended if you revert the edits as you proposed. Theflyer 05:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In truth there is no completely coherent philosophy of what these 'Political views of X' writeups are supposed to contain, regardless of whether they are sections or standalone articles. Some issues:

• Are they tied to campaigns? The Hillary Clinton one was not originally, but some of the more recent ones obviously are.
• Should they include just speeches and position papers, or should they also contain votes? If the latter, they tend to overlap and duplicate the biographical main articles.
• Should they contain critical analysis of the 'views'? See Talk:Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton for several discussions of this. It's easy to see NPOV problems either way.

For Romney, the third question is obviously crucial, since his views/positions have undergone change. Wasted Time R 11:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note that I'm not against moving the section for all time, rather, looking for stronger reasons than "consistency" with other pages (that so far, are mostly poorly developed, and in my view, mis-named). I'm hoping for more development: the more editors involved, the more rapidly such a section will improve, a less likely occurance as a stand-alone article, for now, in my view.
• Just to be clear, I do not advocate folding any other "views" article back into a more comprehensive page (though if I were involved with the Mike Gravel pages, I might).
• I agree a comprehensive integration and analysis of the changing positions and actions of Romney is desirable; that is part of why the Romney Governor page is so large--he received a lot of attention for equivocating and claiming his positions had not changed when his actions showed otherwise.
• Speeches and statements are not enough, and Romney's transformation is a good example of why. In addition, Romney also proposed dead-letter bills to the legislature that he never actually lobbied for, had some vetos unanimously overidden, and some executive policies were immediately overturned by his successor in office. Context and information like that gives better understanding on "positions" or "views." An historical and critical analysis, relying on cited sources making such analysis is desirable for any "political positions" article.

-- Yellowdesk 16:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in reverting the edits so that the positions are included back on the campaign page. Both of you have done far more editing on this page than I ever will. You clearly have given this much thought and believe recombining the pages will improve quality, so I say go for it. We can always split it back out later if a greater consensus or need arises to do so. Again, I'm sorry for not reading the talk page first and causing unnecessary loss of time for all of us in this discussion. Theflyer 01:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the article has some history of its own, and is garnering some attention, I'll withdraw the request to re-merge...as it will eventually become independant sooner or later. But I would really like to change the name, to "Political Positions of Mitt Romney" instead of the present name: "Political views of Mitt Romney" I think I have said my primary reasons for this above. What objections (or support) are there to that name? -- Yellowdesk 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs section

• This section is not a forum for criticism of the Mormon church. It should only contain information on how Romney's religion has in fact affected the campaign, or how influential commentators have predicted that it may affect the campaign. I'm deleting the "Why America is Concerned with a Mormon President" section. Please do not add it back without reaching consensus on the talk page here. -209.134.37.146 19:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Soteriology - quit re-adding the "Why America is Concerned with a Mormon President" in this article. It is irrelevant to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, for the reasons that the above poster has stated. If you insist on re-adding it again without a consensus on the talk page, I will report you to a Wikipedia administrator. Bobman52 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bobman, making threats is not within the spirit of what makes Wikipedia what it is. A lot of Americans ARE concerned about a President of the LDS faith. Here's the problem. Romney was a liberal, if not RINO governor of the liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He gather endorsements for Pro-Choice organizations. He looks and sounds like a good Democrat. Then, one day, he decides to run for President, and toes the LDS line on several matters of faith. After reading Soteriology's commentary, I agree that it probably violates WP:NPOV and the undue weight clause. However, that does not mean you can eliminate a section on America's concern, just because you think the there is no reason to worry about an LDS president. As a former Utah resident, I saw numerous reasons why I would not support an LDS president, but I'm a smart enough editor to use verifiable and supported sources. Orangemarlin 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin - I am not the only one who has removed that section. I have done so twice, the other five or so times, someone else has. It is true that many Americans are concerned about a President of the LDS faith, and that is in the article. What does not belong in the article, however, is this section that Soteriology has consistently re-added several times. If you really don't want me to take it out again, that's fine by me, because I'm positive someone else will because of how obvious it is that it does not belong in this article. And by the way, the only reason I'm thinking of reporting the problem is because Soteriology has re-added that section several times, despite it being removed by different people and concerns on the talk page. The most recent time, the first post of this talk section had already been posted, but was blatantly ignored. Bobman52 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you read what I read, I did not make an endorsement of the section. I am concerned that you made a threat against Soteriology. If he violated WP:3RR, which does no appear to be an issue, I'm not sure you have a "case" against him. You are right, his section was blatantly POV, but the intent, as best as I can tell, was correct. And you're right there are several articles on criticisms of Mormonism that he can edit. Please remember the three revert rule applies to both sides of an editorial dispute, so rather than delete the section, I would suggest a rewriting, since I think, unless you are completely in denial, that many Americans are concerned about an LDS president. I am a Liberal Democrat, and I've supported Harry Reid as Majority Leader of the US Senate. But he's consistently moderate/left moderate, so I have no problems at this time. Finally, as for the section being dreadful, that would be your opinion. Once again, rather than get into an edit war, how about helping rewrite the section. I'll contribute my knowledge, but I'm afraid I'm biased. I usually do not edit articles where I have a non-verfiable bias. Orangemarlin 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2008#Religious_beliefs section that discusses the religion issue as it affects the Romney campaign. That section is entirely justified and reasonably well done. What's at issue is Soteriology's added subsection, which is just a rant against the LDS with no connection to Romney. There's no amount of rewriting that will save that subsection, as its reason for existence is bogus. Wasted Time R 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The section in question was dreadful. It had nothing to do with Romney, but instead was a general rant about things like whether Mormonism is "true" (by definition, you can't prove any religion to be true or false!). As to the above comment, there's no evidence that Romney's changing views are to "toe the LDS line"; much more likely is that he is toeing the likely-Republican-base-voters-in-primaries line, which is exactly what Giuliani and McCain are doing as well. Wasted Time R 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's why I dislike you Republicans. Perfectly responsible and liberal Republicans move far right to get votes. What Guiliani and McCain are doing are quite reprehensible. By the way, from a philosophical point, I disagree with the religion is "true or false" premise. I factually dispute the Historicity of Jesus, and I quite saddened that millions of my people have died over the years at the hands of Christians. But that doesn't have anything to do with Romney or his run for President, that's a debate for other areas.Orangemarlin 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

<Arbitrarily removed indents>OK, I removed the POV tag, because even though I don't like this man, the article is quite responsibly written. Doesn't convince me to vote for the waffler, but I doubt he had any chance of getting my vote anyways. I think the Section on Religious beliefs should be fleshed out a bit more. I've read a couple of articles where a fairly large group of Americans won't vote for an LDS person as a President--maybe Soteriology can take the time to write a balanced, NPOV paragraph or two about the reasoning of such people. However, a discussion of religion, and whether Joseph Smith was whatever, is not within the realm of this article. Orangemarlin 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the POV tag was not justified. Wasted Time R 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Soteriology's commentary is out of place here. If you want to talk about the effects of religion on Romney's campaign, cite actual news articles such as this article about Regent University students and alumni who are protesting Romney's speech there on the basis that "his Mormon faith clashes with the school's bedrock evangelical Christianity. ... 'What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe,' said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year." Unteathered criticism of Mormonism does not belong in this article. -Fagles 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

180-degree turns on abortion, death penalty, homosexual, and Iraq war issues

I don't see Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an issue, moreso it is the fast mounting number of latter-day "conversions" the man seem to be having on his policies. Conservatives should know Mr. Romney could not have been elected governor of that bluest of blue states without having at least pretended to have been socially moderate (which in other states might easily be termed liberal). The real question is when is the man pretending? When he assures a group of Republican homosexuals (I know, who'd of thunk that) he would be a better friend to them than Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton, or when he stood up before a gathering of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and assured them he wouldn't seek to overturn abortion laws? Or, maybe his stance on the death penalty, or would it be Iraq troop deployment? There's so much to choose from.

What conservatives should be concerned about is that he will likely be similarly as dependable to them as he was to Massachusetts' liberals. Worse, it isn't difficult to see James Carville's eyes fill with glee with the prospect of casting Mr. Romney as a sort of oily political prostitute: "I was against abortion before I was for it, and now I am defintely against it again. I mean it this time." Of course somewhere the Log Cabin Republicans have a video of Mitt telling them how much better a supporter of gays he would be than Ted Kennedy. That will really be rich in a September '08 television ad.

On wikipedia it seems there isn't a way of keeping even a cited, linked, sourced statement that is in the tiniest way inconvenieint or less than sterlingly praiseworthy on either of the Romney articles. It is summarily labeled irrelevant and reverted. With a small army of supporting editors and unregistered users, working under a banner of Mitt, reverts can take place quickly, and the 3 revert limit by a single member easily overcome.

But there won't be a revert button for the televised 527 group ads where Mitt, in his own voice, tells an auditorium full of homosexuals (the two muscled tank top-clad lads cuddling on his left are a nice touch) he will be a better friend to them than Ted Kennedy. User:GearedBull 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(Fixed misleading signature above of User:GearedBull per this edit) -- Yellowdesk 05:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An article in the Boston Globe has been referenced in relation to this. It's a sarcastic editorial claiming he's changing religion to whatever the voters decide. It's obviously not true, and is poking fun, so the reference to it as fact in the religious beliefs section has been removed. Kristmace 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The only position that he has changed was abortion. He was against gay marriage in 2002, 2004, and today. It was against assault weapons in 2002, 2004, and now... myclob 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Myclob, that isn't so. Mitt actively courted the gay vote in Mass. He wrote a letter to the Log Cabin Republican Club (gay Republicans, I know, go figure sort of like Jewish folks becoming Nazi party members, huh?). Any hoo, he also appeared at the Hynes Convention Center at a homo event in 2002 and prmised to be a better friend to homosexuals than Ted Kennedy. Now, you can say he hasn't flip-flopped, but its sort of like saying our boy mitt is a real gun nut. he just ain't. My mom saw him in person reassure a group of women in Littleton, MA in May 2002. He told them he supported a woman's right to choose. My mom is Catholic, but prochoice, and she says he did not say he would leave it as is, she says he said he supported a woman's right to choose. Someone's lying, and I can promise you it sure isn't my 82 year olf mama. CApitol3 02:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

* “This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians.”

         o Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

   * “Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. “
         o Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 14:11:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC). 

Move of Religious beliefs section

Should this section become a subsection of controversies? The fact that he is Mormon isn't a controversy directly, but the content of this section talks mostly about how it is a controversy. Therefore I propose we move it to become a subsection of "Controversies". Thoughts? Chupper 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not a legal or ethical issue or a notable gaffe, but rather a discussion of a particular aspect of Romney that may make it harder for him to win the race. It would be like a section discussing McCain's age, or Obama's inexperience, or Gingrich's low favorable/unfavorable poll numbers. Wasted Time R 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... those all would go under controversies! myclob 21:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about title of Political views of Mitt Romney article

• There is an active discussion about potentially revising the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name. In case you're interested, go to Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
  
• A brief history; the article started as a section called Political positions in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 article, following a discussion at Talk:Mitt_Romney#This page lacks personal political beliefs. It became a stand-alone article in mid-March.

-- Yellowdesk 04:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I think the opening paragraph could use an overhaul. The language following the opening sentence seems to be very technical and wordy to lay reader and we are probably loosing a lot of interest at that point. Any ideas how to rework it?--Atomicskier 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it a try. I think it had its most recent significant edits before Romney had made the formal (and as the paragraph indicates, not so significant) declaration of candidacy. -- Yellowdesk 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's done, but I'm sure it will need a little tweeking. As you can tell, I tried to focus mainly on summarizing his platform, since I think that's what most readers that are just browsing through will be looking for. I found it difficult to keep it short without using cleche generalizations like, "He's in favor of health care reform." Of course I didn't want to go into to too much detail either since there is an article on the political positions of Mitt Romney.--Atomicskier 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Most endorsements?

The article asserts, without citation, that Romney has been endorsed by more members of Congress than any other presidential candidate. It then lists five Congressional endorsers. Elsewhere, in discussing McCain (John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Endorsements), Wikipedia lists eight Senators and 17 House members who've endorsed him. Even if we assume that a few of McCain's endorsers have been caught in some felony and forced to resign, and the list simply hasn't been updated, I doubt there'd be enough of those to put McCain behind Romney. Unless someone can produce a citation for the statement, and give us reason to think that the cited source is still correct despite the specifics of the McCain list, I think the assertion should be removed.

And, for the benefit of you humor-impaired types, let me clarify that my barb about Republican felons is just a harmless little joke. I'm not suggesting that a reference to the culture of corruption be included in the Endorsements section of this article. JamesMLane t c 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The "most" statement may have come from a January 2007 Romney press release, I believe, and probably was true in January, when they announced 20-odd supporters. If you check the the sentence link, Congressional endorsements for the 2008 presidential election and their primary source, Endorsements '08The Hill, which is apparently regularly updated, you might conclude the statement is verifiable, and even properly sourced. -- Yellowdesk 13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your response highlights a point that had occurred to me: that the number of endorsements for all candidates will be constantly changing (even aside from indictments). Therefore, any such claim of "most" should be qualified as being "as of" a particular date. Also, whether the claim is made by a campaign or by an independent source such as The Hill, there would probably be some inherent imprecision (they forgot about someone, they counted someone else's warm approval as an endorsement when the speaker actually stopped just short of that, etc.). Therefore, I'm inclined to think that any such claim should be attributed to a particular source rather than being stated as a fact.

I just went to The Hill's page and found that, right now, it lists 27 endorsements each for Romney and McCain (and, coincidentally, for Clinton). I'm going to change this article to report a tie between those two Republican candidates. An archived version of the list would presumably support the assertion that, at some point, Romney was ahead, but that doesn't seem to be important enough to merit digging through the Hill archives and adding to this article. JamesMLane t c 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Updates and accuracy are a good thing. And if I can interest you in updateting that Congressional page, even better. -- Yellowdesk 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy is more important than updates. My text describing the status as of April 10 has been changed by people who saw additional endorsements later, but they didn't change the date ("as of April 10"), so the resulting text was false. I'm reverting.

Anyone who wants to update the reference should feel free to do so, but you must correctly note the "as of" date and fix the citation access date. JamesMLane t c 05:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This website, shows that infact, Mitt Romney does have the most endorsments... http://thehill.com/endorsements-2008.html myclob 20:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorsements are a running thing, though, so that could change at any time as other candidates gain more endorsements.--Gloriamarie 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Romney's first biography is out...

... I think that should be mentioned... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.142.193.253 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

• Are you talking about A Mormon in the White House? Antley 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many criticisms in article

This article, especially the campaihn development section, appears to be 90% criticisms and very little about the development of the Romney campaign. I'm thinking about putting up a NPOV tag. What say ye? Antley 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is missing that should be there?--Gloriamarie 22:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Antley, but let me put this in perspective. I'm a liberal. I live in Massachusetts. I suffered through his tenure as our absentee-governor, bashing the state that he was elected to represent and try to bring business into. I despise his politics. Yet, this article reads like a political hitjob rather than an encyclopedic entry. As much as I detest the man, I'm sure there are more positive things to say about him. Probably the most important thing about a campaign is the stated positions, yet there is simply a link here buried in the middle of the article to a different entry -- not even an effort to summarize. I think the criticisms are all fair and valid, but this does not read as a neutral article right now IMO. croll 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

{{NPOV}} tag going up. Joseph Antley 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The political positions have their own article at Poltical positions of Mitt Romney. Most other candidates' campaign articles do not even have a link to their political positions.--Gloriamarie 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why in the heck is this dog thing included? "strapped a kennel with his dog Seamus to the roof of his station wagon for the 12-hour trip". This is not relevant to this campaign in any way. After reading the sources it was stated that the dog enjoyed riding like that and the family love their dog. If Romney was a real animal abuser, I could understand that being mentioned. Otherwise, this inclusion is laughable. I'll be removing it unless anyone really wants it included. Chupper 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's included because it received significant press attention and thus affected Romney's campaign. (I'll bet more people could tell you about the dog incident than could tell you where Romney stands on the estate tax.) The paragraph presents the criticism and presents Romney's response, so it seems OK to me (although of course there's more detail that could be provided, this level of coverage seems about right). I'm restoring it. JamesMLane t c 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just make a Criticisms of Mitt Romney article. But oh wait, then we wouldn't have a presidential campaign article. :roll: Joseph Antley 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article tends too heavily toward the critical, the remedy is to add the counterbalancing information that you think is missing. Don't try to achieve a spurious "balance" by depriving the reader of relevant, properly sourced information. I haven't been involved in the article much -- have repeated attempts to include something nice about Romney been ruthlessly reverted by a hit squad of biased editors? JamesMLane t c 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how media talking about a dog he had twenty years ago is part of his campaign. I'm thinking of moving things like that to a ==Criticisms== section. Joseph Antley 05:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If something significantly affects his campaign, it's relevant to this article -- even if the reason for the effect is that our media are superficial and find it easier to discuss subjects like that than to analyze Romney's position on health care. Wikipedia, for better or worse, reflects the world as it is. Speaking of dogs, we have an entire article about the Checkers speech, and rightly so. It wasn't very relevant to Nixon's qualifications but it was important in the campaign. JamesMLane t c 05:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

James, I agree that material (if true) relevant to Romney's campaign should be included. However, the flow and structure of this article is completely different than any of the other campaign development articles for the other candidates. In the way this article is structured, each and every point is turned into a criticism, contradiction or a "gotcha". It's not balanced, and it can't be cured simply by adding new information. To the contrary, I think the article needs to be divided into two sections: something that substantively talks about his campaign, and another that discusses criticisms of the campaign. Having said that, I think the dog issue is really pushing the boundaries of relevance -- it was a hot topic for about two days and has since dropped off the map (except, perhaps, for PETA). I think it should stay, but it's pushing it, and should probably be in a criticisms section. croll 15:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add anything to the article, they can; I don't think anything currently in the article should be taken out although positive information should be added. What types of topics should be included that are not?--Gloriamarie 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gloria, as mentioned, it's not just adding information. It's restructuring the article which is a bit more substantive. See Antley's proposal below, which I think is a fair one. Peace, croll 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose the article be reorganized, none of the information necessarily needs to be removed. Things like the "Allegations of animal abuse", "hunting comments", and "Time on Marriott board" be moved to a ==Criticisms== section. The ==Campaign development== section should have information added such as his efforts in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida, the "Ask Mitt Anything" sessions he's been having, the "Mittmobile", the use of the Five Brothers Blog, and other information that are actually pertinent to the subject heading -- Campaign development --, and leave things that are not pertinent to the development of the actual campaign in the Criticisms section. That way the article could follow the standard set by Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008, John_McCain presidential campaign, 2008, Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, etc. I didn't want to go ahead and just change it without a concensus. What say ye? Joseph Antley 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think that reorganization suggestion is a good one. Would that be acceptable to JamesMLane, Gloriamarie and others? croll 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been a week. Nobody has a problem with the proposed reorganization? If not, great, but just checking. croll 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I reorganized it into a criticism section, its better now. If I messed up please correct it.--Southern Texas 03:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Troopers

I'm a little confused by a sentence in this article (the same one appears in the main Romney article):

Former Governor Michael Dukakis criticized Romney for using Massachusetts State Troopers as security on his travels, as he never traveled with one during his 1988 presidential run, and stated that Romney's campaign should reimburse the state.

Shouldn't that be:

...for using Massachusetts State Troopers as security on his travels, as he never traveled without one...

If he never traveled with one, what's the problem? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The way the sentence is written now is confusing. Here's what it is referring to: Romney frequently traveled with Massachusetts State Troopers as security when campaigning for president. Dukakis never traveled with state troopers during his 1988 presidential campaign. Dukakis criticized Romney for using state money to campaign and said that Romney's campaign should reimburse the state.-Fagles 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious Opposition

I reverted this last addition to the article:

Romney is openly opposed by prominent pastor Bill Keller, who sent an announcement to his 2.4 million e-mail subscribers declaring "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!"

because I have a hard time believing that someone we don't even have an article about is "prominent". I think any discussion of opposition to him because of his religion is valid, but we don't have to include every little fringe pastor that opposes him. A summary of opposition to him would be worthwhile, or even a specific opposition by someone who really is prominent. But including every little minister or preacher's opposition will just clutter the article IMHO. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs more about the development of Romney's actual campaign and less about criticisms of him. Joseph Antley 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that pastor should not be included.--Gloriamarie 23:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone (who has since been indefinitely blocked for other reasons) had reinserted this section of the article and I removed it again yesterday. croll 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)