MITT ROMNEY IS MORMON. I open with his religion instead of introducing him as a candidate because it is Romney himself who, yesterday, decided that it would be a good idea to address the already controversial issue of religion. He gave a speech that addressed it directly — “Faith in America,â€Â which was meant to restore potential voters’ faith in him as a man who can separate church and state.
But from the time I heard him say, relatively early in his speech that, “freedom requires religion,â€Â I questioned his ability to do so.
The move to talk about Mormonism was a good idea –– in theory. By addressing unanswered questions about a religion that has had some very controversial beliefs from the beginning, Romney might have convinced critics that his religion wouldn’t affect his presidency.
By showing that he is both a devout Mormon and politician, he could also show us that the issue of being Mormon today is no different than the issue that arose because of John F. Kennedy̢۪s Catholic faith.
But the problem is that his speech didn’t really talk about Mormonism. He hardly used the word. Instead he showed that he is a seasoned politician –– if vague answers and quoting powerful statements from past presidents count as running a persuasive campaign.
The main question that Romney needed to answer directly — but dodged very carefully — was if he could separate his religious beliefs and his duties as leader of the country.
Of course Romney answered that he could, in fact, separate his religious obligations from his political actions.
“I will put no doctrine of any church above the Constitution or sovereignty of law,â€Â Romney said, trying to convince his audience that he would put his religious obligations second to his duties as president.
For a moment, I believed him –– I followed along as he quoted Abraham Lincoln’s idea of “political religionâ€Â and explained that as president, he would defend the law and the Constitution.
But then he backtracked on several of the points he had made — the first being his ability to make decisions that are not faith-based.
Romney talked about taking the oath of the presidency –– and it sounded like he was anticipating it to be a religious experience.
“When I place my hand on the Bible,â€Â Romney said, “that oath becomes my highest commitment to God.â€Â
This sent up a red flag. I began to consider the validity of the concerns of Romney̢۪s opponents who are afraid that his religion might interfere.
One of the main ways that Mormonism differs from Christianity is that there is a prophet –– at this time, President Gordon B. Hinkley –– who is considered to be God’s voice.
This can be related to the original concern of Kennedy being influenced by the pope.
But the concern of the Mormon prophet̢۪s influence on Romney is a valid one, and one that Romney didn̢۪t answer.
Having been raised Mormon, I know the influence that the prophet has. Ignoring something that the prophet requests amounts to a severe offense against God.
I remember when President Hinkley made an address that said that young women should have no more than one ear piercing on each ear. My mother immediately asked me to remove my second piercing –– and when I refused, she questioned my faith and expressed concern for me. To her, I had offended the prophet –– and therefore God.
So I wonder how Romney can possibly escape being pressured by the prophet.
This is not to say that the prophet will try to get involved –– but the fact that he could bring up the question –– how would Romney, as a devout Mormon, be able to say no without offending God?
This isn’t so much of a loaded question as it is one that needs to be addressed, especially since ignoring a wish from the prophet might give him even more trouble with his family –– to whom Romney said he has an obligation.
“My faith is the faith of my fathers; I will be true to them and my beliefs,â€Â Romney said.
But the issue here isn̢۪t that he would have those pressures, it̢۪s that he hasn̢۪t shown that he would go out of his way not to be influenced by personal convictions.
It is Romney himself, who mentioned that he believes church and state have been too separated, the separation clause taken “well beyond its original meaning.â€Â
He goes so far as to say that those who want to separate church and state are “intent on establishing a new religion in America; secularism. They are wrong.â€Â
For a speech with the intentions of reassuring the public that he is a viable candidate whose religion has nothing to do with his ability to lead the country, it alienated me and I was left to wonder: How can I vote for someone to lead the country that could potentially be influenced by another leader?
I can̢۪t.
Michael Lee • Jun 28, 2008 at 10:38 am
How can you say a president is not influenced by another leader. Either human or spiritual deity, every being on earth lives under a set of “christian” values known famously as The Ten Commandments. This country has incorporated these universal beliefs into a revised more deatiled version called The Bill of Rights. If a man (or woman) were to become president, how can we the people not expect him or her to follow a set of rules and living standards set forth by a higher ‘power’, ‘leader’, ‘God’ or whatever you call it. Contrary to your earlier upbringing, you no longer believe in the mormon church, but it doesn’t mean you follow a new leader or live your life by a set of rules a ‘higher power’ has set for you.
Mitt Romney may not follow the same leader as 92 percent of the country, but he, like the rest of us, will always listen to a higher power that commands his actions. Just as we do, but may not admit or even understand it.
It is merely our own misgivings about Mormonism that places the uncertainty of our trust in Romney’s decisions. Don’t make the mistake in thinking the american people trust anything outside the circle of norm.
Michael Lee • Jun 28, 2008 at 5:38 pm
How can you say a president is not influenced by another leader. Either human or spiritual deity, every being on earth lives under a set of “christian” values known famously as The Ten Commandments. This country has incorporated these universal beliefs into a revised more deatiled version called The Bill of Rights. If a man (or woman) were to become president, how can we the people not expect him or her to follow a set of rules and living standards set forth by a higher ‘power’, ‘leader’, ‘God’ or whatever you call it. Contrary to your earlier upbringing, you no longer believe in the mormon church, but it doesn’t mean you follow a new leader or live your life by a set of rules a ‘higher power’ has set for you.
Mitt Romney may not follow the same leader as 92 percent of the country, but he, like the rest of us, will always listen to a higher power that commands his actions. Just as we do, but may not admit or even understand it.
It is merely our own misgivings about Mormonism that places the uncertainty of our trust in Romney’s decisions. Don’t make the mistake in thinking the american people trust anything outside the circle of norm.
Cynthia Bean • Dec 11, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Be true to yourself, or not.
Sometimes quality supersedes quantity, and sometimes the double edge sword supersedes jurisprudence. Perhaps it is just. It may not call the need to raise another issue, or to try to control the flow of events so that future generations can reap the benefit. It sounds like someone is trying to sell another insurance policy in the 80’s.
“Romney is no hero except to his supporters…”
Who else?
Got finals, later.
Cynthia Bean • Dec 11, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Be true to yourself, or not.
Sometimes quality supersedes quantity, and sometimes the double edge sword supersedes jurisprudence. Perhaps it is just. It may not call the need to raise another issue, or to try to control the flow of events so that future generations can reap the benefit. It sounds like someone is trying to sell another insurance policy in the 80’s.
“Romney is no hero except to his supporters…”
Who else?
Got finals, later.
Eileen W. • Dec 9, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I cannot believe that an opinion piece about qualities we need in a president garners responses that amount to a pity party for Mormonism in general just because Romney is one, and then puts that above service to the people of the United States. Did you READ what Megan wrote in her column? Romney is no hero except to his supporters – in his speech he came off looking like a politician. No surprise there. He did not lay to rest the well-founded concerns as to whether he can be a fair president to people who are atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, etc. In fact, he increased people’s concerns. I agree he shouldn’t be president. Next question.
On a related issue, even if somebody did write something that was not 100% favorable towards Mormonism, that is not necessarily the same as an attack. The opinion piece clearly was indicting Romney-the-candidate for his flaws; it was not anti-Romney the individual or anti-Mormon (Megan tells us her own family, for pete’s sake, is Mormon). Confusing these issues is not very bright – nor fair. The very same questions can and should be asked of any candidate, whatever their religious convictions or lack thereof – how will they do well by all the religious persuasions in this country?
Eileen W. • Dec 10, 2007 at 3:14 am
I cannot believe that an opinion piece about qualities we need in a president garners responses that amount to a pity party for Mormonism in general just because Romney is one, and then puts that above service to the people of the United States. Did you READ what Megan wrote in her column? Romney is no hero except to his supporters – in his speech he came off looking like a politician. No surprise there. He did not lay to rest the well-founded concerns as to whether he can be a fair president to people who are atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, etc. In fact, he increased people’s concerns. I agree he shouldn’t be president. Next question.
On a related issue, even if somebody did write something that was not 100% favorable towards Mormonism, that is not necessarily the same as an attack. The opinion piece clearly was indicting Romney-the-candidate for his flaws; it was not anti-Romney the individual or anti-Mormon (Megan tells us her own family, for pete’s sake, is Mormon). Confusing these issues is not very bright – nor fair. The very same questions can and should be asked of any candidate, whatever their religious convictions or lack thereof – how will they do well by all the religious persuasions in this country?
C.J. Ramirez • Dec 9, 2007 at 6:13 pm
You obviously will not gain 100% support. Although it is without a shadow of a doubt – despite burnout, depression, panic, anxiety – either the bravest or dumbest thing to acquire (be both brave and dumb).
No, the choice is yours.
Never mind that you could have perhaps offended your only support mechanism. I do it all the time – mostly ’cause I’m dumb like some people and don’t think before I speak, but those are the faculties of expression.
Expressing what you feel or what is on your mind is vital – it increases the longevity of life (it’s a bummer that it could demonize an entire social group and reduce their life expectancy due to all that pressure and stress). Granted, the Mormon segment (lifestyle) is a bit small, but that didn’t stop Albertsons. Heck, I’d exploit that resource.
Did I use the word “exploit”, I mean, “market to”. I have such a dirty mouth, and thanks to a few very lovely humanitarian ladies I can’t seem to wash the dirt of my hands (I’m single and old enough to settle looking to fit in with the fashions of Fresno State, the fashionable – given the My Space influence – are those global, hot, greenie models). They keep reminding me how bad I could be, and now I could have O.C.D. as a result. I keep adding up the letters in the alphabet as if each letter had a numerical value. Oh Calgon take me away. Do I need to put a TM following the name Calgon.
It’s not always a question of context, sometimes it’s a question of content (historical). I think people need to feel comfortable with who they are. They need to feel like they can tell others what religious organization they belong to – a large portion of America is feeling a little empathetic. This war on terrorism has made many Americans feel guilty for their religious preferences; while certain elements in society (influential) question are leaderships’ faculties. It’s all so complicated, analyzing the business environment. I think he ignited an opportunity for certain social groups to capitalize on.
Journalism and mainstream media questioned Romney’s religious background and as a result kindled an objection that needed to be taken by the horns and not by-passed. Not for his candidacy, but for his faith. There is no right or wrong here. It seems like a win-win for Romney.
Now, when it̢۪s all said and done he comes home a hero no matter what. He is greeted with open arms and not made to feel bad about what he did or what he serves. So many are eager to question what others serve.
Imagine if all eyes were on you, what an awful process, and because of something you wrote you convinced an entire segment to dump on another weaker one. It wasn’t your intention, and you didn’t realize this weaker segment was in existence – they were just unrepresented. But they’re feeling the heat now. And as a result the cost of health care goes up, because these people are suffering from emotional and mental disorder. Doors are closing and they’ll probably be unemployable, so of coarse they’re going to milk the system for everything. And all thanks to you Megan, and to your freedom of press. These poor people are feeling guilty (demonized) and they don’t even know why. They were just minding their own business.
It̢۪s happened to so many good ethnic folk, including Christian folk. It̢۪s a terrible bridge I understand. The connection is a bit fuzzy but it̢۪s out their.
True, this may not be in context, but you ought to know the symptoms of emotional distress and believe it. For all our sake – that is if you plan to be in a position of influence. You’re never too young to feel empathy, and to feel bad for the potential harm you can cause.
What are the consequences of my decision, my speech sweet apathy?
I enjoyed reading your opinion. I learned a lot about your culture, your particular profile. Now, don’t get paranoid; we’re all friends here.
C.J. Ramirez • Dec 10, 2007 at 1:13 am
You obviously will not gain 100% support. Although it is without a shadow of a doubt – despite burnout, depression, panic, anxiety – either the bravest or dumbest thing to acquire (be both brave and dumb).
No, the choice is yours.
Never mind that you could have perhaps offended your only support mechanism. I do it all the time – mostly ’cause I’m dumb like some people and don’t think before I speak, but those are the faculties of expression.
Expressing what you feel or what is on your mind is vital – it increases the longevity of life (it’s a bummer that it could demonize an entire social group and reduce their life expectancy due to all that pressure and stress). Granted, the Mormon segment (lifestyle) is a bit small, but that didn’t stop Albertsons. Heck, I’d exploit that resource.
Did I use the word “exploit”, I mean, “market to”. I have such a dirty mouth, and thanks to a few very lovely humanitarian ladies I can’t seem to wash the dirt of my hands (I’m single and old enough to settle looking to fit in with the fashions of Fresno State, the fashionable ”“ given the My Space influence ”“ are those global, hot, greenie models). They keep reminding me how bad I could be, and now I could have O.C.D. as a result. I keep adding up the letters in the alphabet as if each letter had a numerical value. Oh Calgon take me away. Do I need to put a TM following the name Calgon.
It’s not always a question of context, sometimes it’s a question of content (historical). I think people need to feel comfortable with who they are. They need to feel like they can tell others what religious organization they belong to – a large portion of America is feeling a little empathetic. This war on terrorism has made many Americans feel guilty for their religious preferences; while certain elements in society (influential) question are leaderships’ faculties. It’s all so complicated, analyzing the business environment. I think he ignited an opportunity for certain social groups to capitalize on.
Journalism and mainstream media questioned Romney’s religious background and as a result kindled an objection that needed to be taken by the horns and not by-passed. Not for his candidacy, but for his faith. There is no right or wrong here. It seems like a win-win for Romney.
Now, when it’s all said and done he comes home a hero no matter what. He is greeted with open arms and not made to feel bad about what he did or what he serves. So many are eager to question what others serve.
Imagine if all eyes were on you, what an awful process, and because of something you wrote you convinced an entire segment to dump on another weaker one. It wasn’t your intention, and you didn’t realize this weaker segment was in existence – they were just unrepresented. But they’re feeling the heat now. And as a result the cost of health care goes up, because these people are suffering from emotional and mental disorder. Doors are closing and they’ll probably be unemployable, so of coarse they’re going to milk the system for everything. And all thanks to you Megan, and to your freedom of press. These poor people are feeling guilty (demonized) and they don’t even know why. They were just minding their own business.
It’s happened to so many good ethnic folk, including Christian folk. It’s a terrible bridge I understand. The connection is a bit fuzzy but it’s out their.
True, this may not be in context, but you ought to know the symptoms of emotional distress and believe it. For all our sake ”“ that is if you plan to be in a position of influence. You’re never too young to feel empathy, and to feel bad for the potential harm you can cause.
What are the consequences of my decision, my speech sweet apathy?
I enjoyed reading your opinion. I learned a lot about your culture, your particular profile. Now, don’t get paranoid; we’re all friends here.
Brent VonCannon • Dec 8, 2007 at 9:05 pm
The Collegian Staff Comment
Good job with this article, Megan! It must have been at least a little awkward for you, but you pulled it off well.
I agree. The bottom line is, there is no religious test for the presidency. It’s sad there’s still so many Americans of all political stripes who have yet to get this concept, even after 230 years!
Under the Constitution, an athiest is just as qualified to be president as the most devout Christian. And yes, Mormons are qualifed too. But please don’t vote either for or against Mr. Romney because he is Mormon; vote for a candidate based on the merits of his/her policies and how competent you think that candidate is.
In response to the somewhat hilarious previous comment: No, Mormons aren’t a cult by the traditional definition; they are an established church, just like Catholics, Lutherans, etc. As for the ‘I bet the people [Mormons] were really unkind, and mean’ comment, all I have to say is, everyone can be mean or nice, and that usually isn’t determined by one’s religion but by personality. So don’t worry. Yes, the Mormons are here, but they aren’t out to get you.
Brent VonCannon • Dec 9, 2007 at 4:05 am
The Collegian Staff Comment
Good job with this article, Megan! It must have been at least a little awkward for you, but you pulled it off well.
I agree. The bottom line is, there is no religious test for the presidency. It’s sad there’s still so many Americans of all political stripes who have yet to get this concept, even after 230 years!
Under the Constitution, an athiest is just as qualified to be president as the most devout Christian. And yes, Mormons are qualifed too. But please don’t vote either for or against Mr. Romney because he is Mormon; vote for a candidate based on the merits of his/her policies and how competent you think that candidate is.
In response to the somewhat hilarious previous comment: No, Mormons aren’t a cult by the traditional definition; they are an established church, just like Catholics, Lutherans, etc. As for the ‘I bet the people [Mormons] were really unkind, and mean’ comment, all I have to say is, everyone can be mean or nice, and that usually isn’t determined by one’s religion but by personality. So don’t worry. Yes, the Mormons are here, but they aren’t out to get you.
G.L. Johnson • Dec 7, 2007 at 8:46 pm
G.LMegan you poor thing, raised a mormon. How did you ever survive that? Your parents must have really not loved you, was it a horrible childhood? Are they still members of that cult? It is a cult isnt it? I bet the people were really unkind, and mean. Im sure i’ll meet a mean one, someday. Megan-dont tell anyone, but I heard, from a reliable sources that there are lots of mormons on campus. Thats right, mormons at fresno state. I know for a fact, that they are in faculty positions, administrative and coaching positions, and hundreds of them attending classes. What do you think about that?
[email protected]
G.L. Johnson • Dec 8, 2007 at 3:46 am
G.LMegan you poor thing, raised a mormon. How did you ever survive that? Your parents must have really not loved you, was it a horrible childhood? Are they still members of that cult? It is a cult isnt it? I bet the people were really unkind, and mean. Im sure i’ll meet a mean one, someday. Megan-dont tell anyone, but I heard, from a reliable sources that there are lots of mormons on campus. Thats right, mormons at fresno state. I know for a fact, that they are in faculty positions, administrative and coaching positions, and hundreds of them attending classes. What do you think about that?
[email protected]
the slop is declining • Dec 7, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I’m not that smart, but…
I was wondering, can we take civil action and impose damages for the clouding of fundamentals. I mean, we can sue the East for misappropriating religious ideologies on a global scale and the Mormons for embezzling them? We can sue for a little shy of 20 million.
Class is almost out.
Now, what is this man talking about? Don’t let Kant or Mill hear him say that…they’ll turn over in their graves. The fact in point, a system of government without law or religion ‘could’ lead to anarchy (the masses are selfish creatures incapable of governing themselves; therefore a system of principles must be established). Your efforts were noble, but his statement was well calculated and ecclesiastically comprised. Freedom is an awesome ideology to look towards in a society that feels deprived of it. As a people we seek to fulfill our deficiencies; it is what we do. A socio-cultural shortcoming that’s sensational can come when a person deprives themselves of things that they need, or believe they need (if you feel you must turn to clauses of the metaphysical to save a sinking ship).
“I need to go out.â€Â
“I need to be my own person.â€Â
“I am.â€Â
Squander, by means of due process, you will seek order.
Granted, he may have clouded the separation line of church and state, but it is church that establishes a candidate̢۪s character in this country not his preference in domination. Your inquiries in Mormonism make me wonder whether or not you understand your own establishments.
The freedom of speech, the freedom of religion…is there something else that interests you?
Church is religion, law and principality; and that he has. It̢۪s a core fundamental in politics.
“In God We Trustâ€Â; not as much as you all claim. Criticism ought to come from an opposing party whose character emulates the likeness of their opposition; this way, your opposition may want to respond.
“My faith is the faith of my fathers; I will be true to them and my beliefs.â€Â If this statement’s undertones does portray the moral fibers of a commited man, than I don’t know what would. It takes courage to convict oneself to a set of ideals; its much easier to tell mom to kiss off, I know. Sometimes, I myself lack the courage.
“Freedom requires religion.â€Â Indeed!
Your blog was well written, and your speech exulted – in a weird sorta way. Good job:) Happy holidays.
the slop is declining • Dec 8, 2007 at 12:10 am
I’m not that smart, but…
I was wondering, can we take civil action and impose damages for the clouding of fundamentals. I mean, we can sue the East for misappropriating religious ideologies on a global scale and the Mormons for embezzling them? We can sue for a little shy of 20 million.
Class is almost out.
Now, what is this man talking about? Don’t let Kant or Mill hear him say that…they’ll turn over in their graves. The fact in point, a system of government without law or religion ‘could’ lead to anarchy (the masses are selfish creatures incapable of governing themselves; therefore a system of principles must be established). Your efforts were noble, but his statement was well calculated and ecclesiastically comprised. Freedom is an awesome ideology to look towards in a society that feels deprived of it. As a people we seek to fulfill our deficiencies; it is what we do. A socio-cultural shortcoming that’s sensational can come when a person deprives themselves of things that they need, or believe they need (if you feel you must turn to clauses of the metaphysical to save a sinking ship).
“I need to go out.”
“I need to be my own person.”
“I am.”
Squander, by means of due process, you will seek order.
Granted, he may have clouded the separation line of church and state, but it is church that establishes a candidate’s character in this country not his preference in domination. Your inquiries in Mormonism make me wonder whether or not you understand your own establishments.
The freedom of speech, the freedom of religion…is there something else that interests you?
Church is religion, law and principality; and that he has. It’s a core fundamental in politics.
“In God We Trust”; not as much as you all claim. Criticism ought to come from an opposing party whose character emulates the likeness of their opposition; this way, your opposition may want to respond.
“My faith is the faith of my fathers; I will be true to them and my beliefs.” If this statement’s undertones does portray the moral fibers of a commited man, than I don’t know what would. It takes courage to convict oneself to a set of ideals; its much easier to tell mom to kiss off, I know. Sometimes, I myself lack the courage.
“Freedom requires religion.” Indeed!
Your blog was well written, and your speech exulted – in a weird sorta way. Good job:) Happy holidays.
Eileen W. • Dec 7, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Hey Megan, that was very well-argued! Good use of real historical evidence and current information, too.
I like that you are of the same faith as Romney but can see beyond loyalty to that, to loyalty to the nation and its principles. That is what we have to have in a President or else our country could be torn apart by religious battling. Can I vote for you?!
“Freedom requires religion,” Romney said – the Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves. I would LOVE to see him debate real historians about the original intentions. Jefferson et al very clearly meant to protect the baby nation from religious intrusion. If they are in a position to be paying attention to this election, then I assure you they are also cheering you on bigtime!
Eileen W. • Dec 8, 2007 at 12:00 am
Hey Megan, that was very well-argued! Good use of real historical evidence and current information, too.
I like that you are of the same faith as Romney but can see beyond loyalty to that, to loyalty to the nation and its principles. That is what we have to have in a President or else our country could be torn apart by religious battling. Can I vote for you?!
“Freedom requires religion,” Romney said – the Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves. I would LOVE to see him debate real historians about the original intentions. Jefferson et al very clearly meant to protect the baby nation from religious intrusion. If they are in a position to be paying attention to this election, then I assure you they are also cheering you on bigtime!
Dirk Diggler • Dec 7, 2007 at 1:25 pm
All religions are cults—-Mormanism probably falls somewhere between Catholicism and Scientology or Paganism on the religious continuum.
Dirk Diggler • Dec 7, 2007 at 8:25 pm
All religions are cults—-Mormanism probably falls somewhere between Catholicism and Scientology or Paganism on the religious continuum.
Whatever • Dec 7, 2007 at 10:57 am
I wonder if in 50 years people will be interested in things like whether a candidate thinks Captain Kirk is better than Picaird, or if “The Singing Bee” is better than “Don’t Forget The Lyrics.”
As a country we seem pretty interested in things that shouldn’t matter to a president’s job. If religious factions didn’t donate so much to campaigns, maybe this stuff wouldn’t dominate campaign season.
But I guess this is easier to swallow than scheduling debates and speeches defending a candidate’s stances on accepting huge corporate contributions with the idea of later passing favorable policy.
Whatever • Dec 7, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I wonder if in 50 years people will be interested in things like whether a candidate thinks Captain Kirk is better than Picaird, or if “The Singing Bee” is better than “Don’t Forget The Lyrics.”
As a country we seem pretty interested in things that shouldn’t matter to a president’s job. If religious factions didn’t donate so much to campaigns, maybe this stuff wouldn’t dominate campaign season.
But I guess this is easier to swallow than scheduling debates and speeches defending a candidate’s stances on accepting huge corporate contributions with the idea of later passing favorable policy.
Avril L. • Dec 7, 2007 at 9:52 am
Megan,
I like you am a rebel. I also have 2 sets of earings on each ear, and when my mother told me to take out a set, I said “like, no way mom, im keeping my earings in”. Great story, there’s no way im voting for Romney either.
[email protected]
Avril L. • Dec 7, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Megan,
I like you am a rebel. I also have 2 sets of earings on each ear, and when my mother told me to take out a set, I said “like, no way mom, im keeping my earings in”. Great story, there’s no way im voting for Romney either.
[email protected]
B. Obama • Dec 7, 2007 at 9:43 am
Good peice Megan. It was shallow, vauge and difficult to follow. I coudnt have said it better.
[email protected]
B. Obama • Dec 7, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Good peice Megan. It was shallow, vauge and difficult to follow. I coudnt have said it better.
[email protected]