Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson

Here is a great interview of Mitt Romney with Jan Mickelson! As I watched it, I could not believe how defensive Romney got when the subject turned to Mormonism. In my opinion, Mitt was way too defensive to hear exactly what he was being asked of him. Mickelson was trying to give Romney some advice on how Mitt can overcome some of his potential problems with Evangelical voters and Ronmey kept missing the point. I think this video is a classic example of why God gave us only one mouth, but TWO ears. For more background information on this interview, check out Jonathan Martin’s blog.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebook Twitter Email


  1. I’m keeping a close watch on Romney too!

  2. “Mickelson was trying to give Romney some advice on how Mitt can overcome some of his potential problems with Evangelical voters and Ronmey kept missing the point.”Oh, come on, Keith. Mickelson was doing quite a bit more than that. First of all, he couldn’t get off his own ultra-conservative pet-peeve that no serious Presidential candidate could possibly answer in the affirmative (even if they personally sympathized for it): that a US president should return to the original Constitutional format, and try to simply cut out the Supreme Court. (Believe it or not, Mitt is a true and committed Conservative and Republican, and obviously sympathized for this view; but, no, like the last upteenth Republican presidents to lead this country, he’s not looking to spark a civil revolution on Capital Hill just to return to our hallow beginnings–however right or wrong they may be. The last thing this country needs right now is more divisiveness.)As for Mitt “losing it” on the religious issues, I for one was proud of him for showing his personal pride and strength of belief, even if those things might not reflect strength to many. They are real. “Off-the-air” conversations (which Mickelson obviously LIED about) are refreshing to see. I respect Mitt nothing less, and I easily identified with a fellow Mormon that’s growing impatient with a bunch of “smarty-pants” in the Bible-belt who are all too sure that he’s going to hell in a hand-basket, and who think that because they’ve read an expose book or two on Mormonism they obviously know more about Mitt’s faith than Mitt himself.I personally really feel for him. But I think the average Iowan probably is far more likely to be plain Evangelical rather than committed anti-mormon, and will ultimately be win over by Mitt’s sincere faith and honesty.While I think winning the Bible-belt will be a tough one for Mitt, win or lose, in the end, I think he will widely respected there by the time it’s all over.He, like I, trust in the sincerity of Evangelical faith and spirituality. Despite the bigotry and senseless mistrust of some.Sincerely,Dale Caswell.

  3. Dale,Where do you get the idea that Michelson lied to Romney?

  4. Michelson: “this is my own opinion, off the air, that you’ve made a big mistake in distancing yourself from your faith…”While that’s not the start to the hidden camera (a camera rarely employed by the station), it is the start to this whole frank conversation between Mitt and Michelson.Obviously, Mitt and his crew were not tipped off to the camera, nor to the continued audio recording, and while Michelson’s motion of being “off the air” COULD be taken to mean simply off the live radio air, that phrase clearly implies “off the record.” Michelson and his radio station were clearly in the business of deception, and his words were intentionally deceptive (as I imagine his body language was as well–while we never see him, Mitt’s change in body language at the radio break implies that Michelson’s body language had also changed with his renewed conversation: “I’d love to have an hour, not ten minutes…then we’d have nuance…”Was Romney a bit naive in offering such a candid conversation in a room full of recording technology? Most definitely. But the radio station obviously had planned to capture a clandestine, private conversation unbeknowst to Mitt Romney and his staff. That’s deception, and Mickelson’s verbal bait, in my book, was therefore most definitely a LIE.As for the claim that Romney wasn’t listening to Michelson’s so-called “advice” to help Mitt win the praise of other faiths (particularly Evangelical Protestants): well, let’s just say that most people don’t want to take advice that starts out with a clear presumption and personal accusation, that really was baseless: that Romney has not been “morally consistent.”Romney consistently answered that in his role as law-maker and government executive, he has not pushed to impose on the populace his consistent personal belief in the murderous action of liberal abortion. In the end, with the current balance of powers, what single executive really can, anyways?No one knows the executive corruption that the courts of this land are capable of imposing better than Mitt Romney. But really, what can he do to end it, other than lead a bloody civil rebellion?Michelson’s advice was a simple, baseless personal accusation backed up with his pipe-dream political idealism. And by the end of their “candid” conversation, his religious questions were becoming arbitrary and fully removed from politics and ethics.One thing that was very apparent in the course of the conversation was that Mitt and Michelson began talking some time before the video we see comes on. Michelson was already under Mitt’s skin by the time the camera is even rolling. So Mitt didn’t “lose it” as easily as it seems, IMO. Again, a clandestine plan to deceive the naive.Like I said, Keith, I think Romney’s emotion in this candid instant won’t be his undoing. Most people are charged with emotion, and in the end Romney was strong and consistent in proclaiming his personal beliefs, no matter how flustered he became. Most people see the “real” in this, and identify with it.What isn’t so real are those who oppose Romney, not because they oppose what he personally stands for and has personally achieved, but because they fear promoting his religion–a religion which he has consistently demonstrated will not be imposed by him on the populace.But does this mean he’s not a man that will bring high ethics, principle, and faith with him to the oval office? Of course not!But bigotry and resentment among many evangelical protestants would gladly and foolishly sacrifice all this in the name of opposing “evil” Mormonism.Even if it means opening the gates to our queen of faithless secularlism, Hillary Rodman Help Us All. Sincerely,Dale Caswell.

Leave a Comment