Romney objected to Kennedy’s blind trust’s purchase in 1981 of a property in Washington D.C., which the trust then leased to federal tenants. Romney called it “a conflict of interest, pure and simple” and rejected Kennedy’s argument that he was knew nothing about the trust’s investments.
“The blind trust is an age-old ruse,” Romney told the Boston Globe in October of that year. “You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.”
Romney’s personal financial filing showed that Romney’s trust owned some potentially controversial stocks, including China Petroleum & Chemical, which has links to Sudan, and several gambling companies(including MGM and Harrah’s, which were sold).
It also showed that the trustee, Ropes & Gray’s Brad Malt, got rid of some stocks that he thought clashed with Romney’s political views, including two foreign oil companies with connections to Iran. (At some point, however, Malt was making money for Romney — or trying to make money for him — by investing in those companies.)
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/08/romney_in_1994.html

For those who claim there is a difference between ecclesiastical and political separation why was that standard not afforded to Dr. Falwell when he formed a political coalition with the Rev. Sun Yung Moon. If I remember there were plenty of articles written against Dr. Falwell’s affiliation with Moon in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And rightfully so. There should be great concern that a Fundamentalist preacher of any brand or stripe can endorse a candidate based on pragmatical perspectives and disregard Biblical principle.

And you guys can argue the merits and folly of Romney until the cows come in, but as for me, I can no more vote for Romney than I could vote for Ahab. If you don’t understand, try 1 Kings 16:31.

fishon

As for the SBC and your father-in-law, Brad, not knowing the context of the question, the church in view, or the circumstances, I won’t comment on it. I will only say that when someone joins fellowship with the SBC, there are legitimate questions that should be asked.

Furthermore, that is not the same as a political endorsement. We are at a bad place when we don’t recognize that political endorsements are not the same as ecclesiastical associations.

As for consistency, Dan, it doesn’t seem you have shown any inconsistency since you are comparing two things that are not similar. BJU has long had politicians to speak of all stripes including Roman Catholics, and individuals at BJU have long supported political candidates of various stripes. To compare that practice with their ecclesiastical concerns seems to be simply an illegitimate comparison, at least as you have argued it here. There may be a legitimate argument to be made, but you didn’t make it, so far as I can tell.

I don’t support Romney, and am certainly not surfing the internet looking to defend him. My main point was on your misrepresentation concerning percussion.