By the way, talk show hosts, like Michael Medved and Jed Babbin, have been crowing how great it was that a Mormon was elected in Liberal Massachusetts. As if getting a "conservative" elected by Liberals was a good thing. This seems backwards to me for two reasons.
First, liberals have no values. They elect homosexuals, wet drunken drivers who let their girl friends drown, and megalomanic Vietnam vets to office. They only reject Christians, and Mormonism isn't Christian. As Liberals, they would be the first to overlook being in a cult as a handicap. I don't see how the will be a harbinger of how true Conservative Christians are going to vote - except that they'll vote opposite to Liberals. (Carl Rove, are you listening?)
Second, it may be that Mormons in general, and Mitt Romney specifically, are not as "conservative" as you are lead to believe. He could be a
RINO. (Think Mayor Bloomberg in New York City.) Maybe the Liberal Massachusettans elected him for a reason? (The Conservatives at The Wall Street Journal didn't think Mitt Romney's health care plan was so great.)
Call me paranoid, but I've seen this before with Mormons: It wouldn't surprise me if Mitt Romney set up residence in Massachusetts years ago for this very purpose. (Remeber Joseph Smith's prophecy, above.) Like Hillary Clinton choosing Liberal New York to make her run for President, Mitt Romney might have chosen Liberal Massachusetts to do the same. He comes from a political family.
Some have called him a political carpetbagger. I will give Mormons this: they are a very industrious bunch, often putting Christians to shame. We should run the race at least as hard as they do.
For a future post: Did you know there's virtually NO difference between Warren Jeffs' Fundamental LDS denomination vs. the Salt Lake City denomination, except the FLDS are truer to Mormon scripture than the liberal Salt Lake City denomination? Polygamy is still a requirement in Mormon scripture to become a god, despite the SLDS's spin otherwise.