I'm not so sure that I would clump Romney in the same category as most politicians. He is and always has been a shrewd businessman with a proven record of turning debts into surpluses. You may think that his political games and words are empty..........but ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS (or even books about hope).
With a name like Romney, I'm not terribly terrified that he will shame the church. As a former bishop and stake president, I think his credentials deserve some sort of character trust.........If the Lord trusts him????? Not that we should just throw our faith and trust around......but is it okay to give a person a benefit of a doubt--especially when there aren't any substantial doubts at this point?
Who cares that our religion will be a topic (can it be worse than Big Love or FLDS issues)? What happens when bigotry is exposed? People become educated and hopefully more tolerant. (That's why I am a true supporter of free speech--hate speeches included--I prefer that to sweeping things under a rug and pretending they don't exist). You know, people will get so bored about hearing about Mormonism that I don't even think it will be an issue. Not supporting someone because he is of the same religion, is like the scenario of many blacks (Al Sharpton) not supporting Obama. That said, vote and support the person who you would think would do the best job. Let's not forget THAT THE STANDARD OF TRUTH HAS BEEN ERECTED--what the heck is there to fear!!!? The church is in good hands....even if we end up the target of jokes for a while.
The argument to support Obama because of his lack of experience (comparing him to someone with more experience like Bush) is scrawny. Lack of experience (regardless of what you think of Bush) should never be viewed as a strength. What happens when someone is choking in a room full of people who don't have experience with the Heimlick maneuver? Some say that Obama is probably less corrupt because of his lack of experience. I say that he is MORE CORRUPTIBLE because of it.
There are many comparisons between Kerry and Romney..........usually from people who supported Kerry........so I find the "flip-flop" name calling is extremely hypocritical. That said, I think the comparison is unfair. The difference from what I've gathered is this: Kerry would say one thing and vote another, while Romney has always been open with his conversions and was careful not to break his supporters' trust. Here's an example--Romney was elected as a "pro-choice" governor; despite his conversion to pro-life (he was always pro-life on a personal basis) he did not seek to change the state laws in place because of his obligation to the voters. But he stayed true to his new stance by disapproving NEW law proposals (4 of them in fact). About him saying that he would fight for gays harder than even Kennedy, not only was that over a decade ago, but gay marriage wasn't even legal at that time. Besides, fighting for gay rights and redefining marriage are separate issues despite the entanglements.
It is quite possible that some of my views will change tommorrow.........and that is the way it should be. I find it interesting that many people think that Mitt should still be pro-choice regardless of his epiphany...........that is unwise, unfair, and can halter one's life progression (pun intended).