Monday, October 22, 2007
|
|
Where's Romney's Bio?
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
10:12 PM
|
|
I know I’m sort of questioning a big strategic assumption behind the Romney campaign here, but I really have to wonder whether the brick wall in polling that he’s hitting is because his campaign has become all about issues and not his incredibly compelling bio. Here’s the problem. Despite spending gobs of money, despite eclipsing Fred Thompson in the invisible primary, he still can’t quite connect with conservatives. Yes, he barely won the FRC straw poll, but only after he and the other ballot stuffing strawpoll-centric campaigns figured out they could phone it in for the in-person contest and focus exclusively on running up the score in the online vote. Filter out the online votes, and you have a pretty organic (and one sided) protest vote for Mike Huckabee. Romney’s speeches are built on the assumption that he can out-conservative Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee by out-talking them. His words are a litany of conservative talking points. Earlier this year, when his conservative credentials were genuinely in question, the issues-talk might have helped. But now his problem has morphed into something far worse: an authenticity problem centered around flip-flopping. And arguably, each time he opens his mouth and spouts platitudes, he only makes it worse. Romney has done to himself what the Bush campaign did to John Kerry. The Bush team made it so that every time Kerry opened his mouth, he hurt himself, thanks to the perception that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Kerry couldn’t help himself by saying the right things because nobody believed what he was saying. Romney’s situation is further complicated by the fact that issues are actually friendly terrain for Rudy Giuliani. Huh? That’s right — because people assume Rudy’s positions are liberal, when he talks conservative, that’s reassuring. When Romney talks issues, people assume he’s pandering. Rudy has an issues problem, one that he’s trying to make go away by talking issues. Romney’s problem is not an issues problem. The flip-flopping charge is a character problem, not an issues problem. So what Romney really must do is shore up perceptions of his character. Romney should resign himself to the fact that he won’t be able to out-conservative Thompson or Huckabee on issues. But he does have unique qualities that make him a more appealing choice than the other conservatives in the field on other grounds. In short, his path to the nomination is to out-conservative Rudy Giuliani (and only Giuliani) and out-executive and out-bio Thompson or Huckabee. In all the ads we’ve seen so far, where is Romney the incredibly successful businessman — the most successful one in North America according to Jim Cramer? Romney the father of five? (this one’s only made the occasional cameo before social conservative audiences). The guy who was home with his wife doing his HBS homework while George Bush was out partying? (Okay, go light on the last part in the primaries.) Or the guy who saved the Olympics? These were all the inspiring reasons why a one-term Massachusetts governor could run for President to begin with, and instead we get awkward metaphors about three-legged stools and blue vs. black suits. The Romneybots could probably dredge up clips to show all of this in campaign material. No need to bother. I’ve seen the clips and they’re playing in my head right now. But how many points have they really put behind bio spots in the early states? Where’s the 60-second bio spot with the soaring music? On February 5th, Mitt Romney wants people to go to the polls saying this: “Slick Romney may be a smooth talker. He’s just telling me what I want to hear. But he was a pretty darned successful businessman. A good governor. And family man — take that Billary. And he’s not Rudy.” Think of how Bill Clinton fought back against ultimately more serious character charges: by reframing the character issue. Yeah, he was a lying, pot-smoking philanderer. But he felt our pain. I like Mitt Romney. But I feel icky whenever I hear him debate. He needs to remind people why they liked him to begin with.
|
|
Romney has pick up another important pro life endorsement from a Brownback supporter.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/willke_romney/2007/10/22 /42869.html
This article lists many of the prominent members of the Christian Right who have endorsed Romney or find him acceptable.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Romney_evangelicals/2007 /10/22/42853.html |
|
The voters in IA and NH know Mitt pretty well.
The wall of resistance is in the national polls. Romney is not running a national campaign. He is micro targeting in the early primary states.
He is starting to address his negatives in SC and FL and his numbers are moving up. Addressing his negatives will give him more lift right now than puffing his already known positives.
Closer to Super T in the larger states (after he has addressed his negatives by campaigning in the early states) he will switch to more positives about his resume and family. That will help as he gets momentum from early primary wins. |
|
... the fact that he seems entirely manufactured. I met him in Reno last week and he just didn't seem "real."
And ANY look at his record proves he is NO conservative. Never was. He is a "doer" not a guy with an ideological position. He'll do whatever it takes to makes something work, just like a businessman often does.
But he has NO principles deeply held or otherwise. And this is the single biggest reason why a real conservative should never vote for Mitt Romney. The man has no principles and will be just as apt to jettison our principles to utilize what will "work" for whatever task he wants to accomplish as president. This means OUR conservative principles will be left in the dust as Romney speeds ahead to "get things done."
And THAT is just as dangerous as having a liberal in office!
We don't want a president that will use just any idea that "works," we want a president that has some deeply held, conservative principles that guides his every more. Not someone that will grasp for just anything, quite regardless of principle, that will "work." |
|
You do have a good point. The Romney campaign so far has been issue driven and very cognitive. Romney needs to connect on the emotional level. Many voters are not that cognitive or rational. They vote on feel and presence of the candidate.
Rudy,Fred, McCain and Huck are a little better on feel with certain segments of voters. Romney is perceived as conservative but less conservative than Fred. Most of that is due to Fred's image.
In spite of taking conservative positions Romney is perceived between Rudy/McCain and Fred on issues.
That is great in the general. However, Romney needs to interject the right emotions into his campaign.
There are various facets of trust. Romney is establishing his social conservative credentials. The flip flop issue will start to die for Romney when McCain's, Rudy's and other's flipflops are openly and plainly attacked. |
|
I would disagree with the idea that Romney does not have principles. He is not a "foaming at the mouth conservative" he is however, conservative on most issues. He does have a pragmatic streak which is very good. You can accomplish a lot more, if you take what you can get now, while preparing to get more.
He will be more effective than Bush on moving more of the conservative agenda forward. He is light years better than Rudy. |
|
I've had all the idealogues I can stand. Give me level-headedness, decency, and Competence.
Oh, and a few words about "missile defense" wouldn't hurt. |
|
ballot too.
When you robots get on a storyline you stick to it regardless of facts.
Two thirds of Huckabee's votes were cast ONLINE.
I guess he did "figure it out" just like everybody else.
Anybody stop to think maybe some of Huckabee's supporters do not know how to use a computer any better than they know how to use a check book? |
|
at McCain, though. He came across as a pretty boy when he let the attack go unchallenged. |
|
Thanks for saying the truth Patrick, although I suspect Hugh is going to demand he gets to proof your posts from now on!
Romney has gradually won me over in convincing me is a far better man than he comes across as. But unfortunately, there is a perception that he will say whatever it takes to be president and that he is not genuine. Fair or unfair (and a lot of it is self inflicted), I fear a Romney nomination because I fear Hillary will beat him.
Here's the Ruffini money quote:
"Earlier this year, when his conservative credentials were genuinely in question, the issues-talk might have helped. But now his problem has morphed into something far worse: an authenticity problem centered around flip-flopping. And arguably, each time he opens his mouth and spouts platitudes, he only makes it worse.
Romney has done to himself what the Bush campaign did to John Kerry. The Bush team made it so that every time Kerry opened his mouth, he hurt himself, thanks to the perception that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Kerry couldn’t help himself by saying the right things because nobody believed what he was saying."
|
|
The Dems are about to re-introduce the D.R.E.A.M. Act AGAIN!!!! Call a press conference and expose these weasels once and for all! Explain to the world that it is just this sort of sneaky "government against the people" that is making voters so cynical about their government. Tell them to knock it off!!!
Nah, won't happen. This is an "American Idol" campaign completely divorced from the real world. It's all about "looking and sounding" presidential. God forbid anyone breaks a sweat actually doing some real work. |
|
Notice Hugh has not linked to the New Yorker article yet about Mitt, even though Hugh is quoted in it. I did not see a link from here to Newsweeks cover story a while back either.
Mitt has tried to apply business sales methodology to a political campaign, and it ain't working. He has tired to package himself as a real conservative, but folks are not buying the product. Voters want authenticity, and can easily see Mitt to be the shallow man he is, he has no core, no self. I disagree with Rudy on all the social issues, but I respect him for sticking to his guns (so to speak).
A political campaign is not like selling detergent, as Mitt and Hugh are learning. Plus you can call people bigots until the cows come home, but many are uncomfortable with LDS, and Mitt has not addressed that, he talks about business, not his religion. The folks don't want to here how your consulting business fixed some company they never heard of. Look how Huck wowed them at the Family values meeting, as a Baptist he could talk the the talk and walk the walk, that's why he got all the votes. Mitt is not connecting with people and is not going to be the GOP nominee. A vanity campaign.
And finally, why is Patrick putting up this post, is Hugh using him to diminish expectations for Mitt. Dean is already plugging Huck over on Weekly Standard.
|
|
Westworld?
this is how I feel when I see Romney. At any time one screw is gonna pop out of his jaw and while repeating a pre rehearsed phrase over and over, his face plate is going to open up revealing a robot.
And note to Romneyites, his wife is real and when they interview together it makes Mitt look even more like a fake plastic tree.
Sorry fans,
dirL |
|
|
|
And you think Bill Clinton is the right model? Seriously funny stuff here!
Call me crazy, but I don't think Romney wants people going to the polls thinking "slick Romney may be a smooth talker, telling me what I want to hear, but blah, blah, blah"
You're wrong about almost everything. First voters who are paying attention do know Romney's bio. Second - the voting started right after Huckabee spoke and before Romney had been able to speak. I wouldn't exactly call Huckabee's second place finish a protest vote.
Romney can out-conservative both Thompson and Huckabee. Thompson - McCain-Feingold-Thompson, lobbying for abortion, formerly pro-choice, soft on immigration and tort reform in the senate. Huckabee - big government solutions, pro-amnesty, bad on tax issues and thinks we "broke a vase" in Iraq. Give me a break.
The record shows that Romney was a conservative governor. You're overblowing his "flip-flop" problem. And the proof is that he is leading in Iowa, NH, Michigan and moving up in the states where he is actively campaigning. It's true that the other top tier are getting away with their own flip-flops. I think this is something Romney needs to come out and fight with.
You also say that Rudy's lack of conservative credentials is "reassuring"? Say what? Pretty convoluted thinking if you ask me.
I'm certain that Romney knows exactly what he's doing and can do without you so called "help".
|
|
Patrick, I think the points you bring up are correct.
But I don't think so much that the resume needs to be brought up, as that speaking without an internal editor needs to be unplugged for a moment.
Note: I am a Fred Thompson supporter, first, but first and foremost I am a Republican supporter.
What I think is missed in that whole Bill Clinton phenomenon is that he presented himself as one of us (which I did not and do not buy into by the way), and partially he did this by not being afraid (I know this sounds contradictory, but by not being afraid to make mistakes). Everyone makes them--what people want to know, just like wise clients is where you stand, and how you stand should you make a mistake. Politics like business isn't so much whether one will make one or not, but rather how the person who has made one can rectify it to the clients’ satisfaction.
Someone who isn't bold enough to make a mistake isn't going to be bold enough lead, that is lead us the victories that are necessary for the Republic.
Note 2) Hillary cannot win unless the Republican nominee is pathetic because no matter how hard she tries she can never convince America that she is one of us, because she isn’t.
Note 3) What some see as Fred’s weakness I see as his strength--steady, grounded, firm. |
|
I support Romney and Giuliani as a second choice. This was a good article, and I agree with a lot of it.
The difference between the Republican candidates and the Dems this election is all the top Dem candidates are former senators. IMO, being a senator should not qualify you to run an administration.
So to be fair, I am not a fan of McCain or Thompson but those options are still better than the Clinton/Obama/Edwards choice.
I'm excited about Romney or Giuliani because they have demonstrated success.
I had to take a "Behavioral Interviewing" course at work, and the most important factor to consider in hiring someone is demonstrated performance to past results. And I have been very successful in my hiring.
Romney and Giuliani have done that. The results are shown. They have done it. Hillary has never accomplished anything.
|
|
PC - If your arguement were persuasive, Patrick would not ever have written this revealing post.
Mitt got laughed out of town when he claimed the conservative mantle, it is just not flying. |
|
|
on Mormonism and you can't seem to get over it. It is making it impossible for you to see reality. |
|
|
Actually, the Big 5 last night all showed competence over Her Highness' lack of cred as well as achievements. The Huck and Rudy did well but so did old John, Fred and Mitt. As to Ron Paul, enough please. The guy would not even tell us that he would support the GOP if he did not get the assignement. He's a Libertarian and that is fine but he is not a Pub.Unity can still beat the Hildabeast. The Pubs surely all are more competent. They are not Hillary in spite of some conspiracy Purists . All are more conservative than Her Highness and the rest of the Dem minions.Over 70 days to the first primary. We shall see how polls divide this out and soon my guess is one or two of the top tier will be thinned out. Celinda Lake, Zogby and Fox all have polling data which say that a few Pubs can actually win in districts that could help down ticket races. And that is not unimportant especially after the Jindal race . Now if only the GOP wussies would get a candidate to face Tim Johnson in Dakota! |
|
If you are going to state a conclusion (i.e., Mitt has no deeply held principles) argue for it with facts.
Here's how this works:
First you state a conclusion such as: I believe Mitt adheres to deeply held principles.
Then you back this up with evidence and argument such as: There is evidence for this in his life.
He excelled at the top law school and one of the top business schools in the country. No one "manufactured" this success, it comes from hard work, dedication and an amazing mind.
He raised a large and good family. No father can do so without living a life of integrity, caring about personal interaction with his children and teaching the values he lives.
He has always volunteered an immense amount of time helping others. As a leader in his church Mitt spend hundreds of hours helping others to live better, more fulfilling lives. Spending such time takes dedication and commitment.
He was (as was mentioned) the most successful business man in North America. Business is about relationships, relationships are about trust. Mitt has gained the trust of the people he did business with.
I've never heard one scandalous story concerning Mitt's business. Despite the hundreds of muckraking reporters that would love to tarnish his image, they have not found a way to do so.
He has been married to the same person for almost 40 years. Everyone I know who has been married that long has convictions about devotion, sacrifice love and honor.
Now, if people disagree, they are free to rebut this argument and thereby my conclusion. This is how productive discourse takes place.
If you want to simply post your "feelings" great, but isn't that what polling is for?
I support Mitt and will gladly argue for him in the manner above as to each concern/issue.
And so, I repeat, Back it up. |
|
in the Rasmussen Poll. Romney ALWAYS loses points after the Friday night polling. But, this week he "Picked up" two points, from 14 to 16. This unusual occurrence could be a result of the Endorsements he's been getting from the Christian Poobahs. Or, maybe it's just an anomaly. Anyway, it DID happen.
The next test will be in the morning when we'll see if he gets his usual post-debate scalping. If he doesn't it Might be a Good Sign.
Huckabee is going to pick up a couple of points. The only question is, "Whose skin will it come out of?" |
|
PC, Mitt's reluctance to discuss LDS is in the New Yorker article, its not my obsession, just a fact of the campaign.
If I am not seeing reality, then why is Patrick writing about Mitt's failure to connect? Just a while ago, Hugh was assuring us Mitt was a man with a plan, that the plan was excellent, and the all was going according to plan. By that logic, this post by Patrick is a absurd, but its Patrick's analysis that hits home, not Hugh or Mitt's campaign of disconnect.
And please note, Patrick is an experienced political operative, and see the handwriting on the wall I have been talking about here for months.
Accusing me of being an anti LDS bigot will change none of these hard facts, thank you. Accusing anyone of bigotry who mentions LDS is NOT the way to win votes. |
|
...but rational argument won't score points with the "No way, not a Mormon!" and "He seems so great it's just gotta be fake!" crowd that loiters these comment boards.
I'm starting to lose faith in conservatism because the Righties are starting to sound just like the Lefties: all bluster, no brains. |
|
|
I was just watching Texas Monthly. Mark Halpern (not a Romney fan) political analyst indicated that he thought Romney had the best chance of getting the nomination. This was based on his early primary support and his ability to write a check for the ad wars. |
|
Huck is not Romney's worst nightmare. His biggest problem is that about 1/2 of Fred's supporters list Romney as a 2nd choice.
I would like to see more recent data but Huck has a lot of supporters who are reluctant to support Romney. They don't hurt Romney as long as they do not migrate to another candidate.
Romney also needs to get some of the conservatives who support Rudy. Rudy has to be hit on his liberalism which he has largely dodged so far. It would be better if someone besides Romney went after him on social issues. |
|
If Romney goes into Iowa within six, or seven in the National Polls, and knocks off Iowa, and New Hampshire it takes very little imagination to take him to the nomination. |
|
You have been posting outrageous anti-mormon stuff here for months. You have calmed down a lot recently, but your history is known. You pretend like your concern is all about his not wanting to talk about his religion. Come clean Richard - you are one of the original hystericals.
BTW - Romney does not need to discuss his religion any more than any other candidate. It's as if you think he has something to explain or apologize for, and he doesn't. Most people don't need an explanation because they know perfectly normal and decent LDS members. |
|
It is so old and ridiculous. The petty attacks on Romney exist because he has such a strong record and because he has such a strong background.
And it really is a terrible signal as Robert Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Conventionarticulate. Here is a talented person. He decided to leave billions in equity, he decided to serve the public, and he has an exceptional ethical framework.
No wonder America consistently gets such a poor pool of people. Talented people do not want to deal with absurd punditry, parasites whose livelihood is yammering and attacking for their irrational favorite. It is Giuliani for you Patrick?
These attacks are lazy and absurd. So where is all this expediency? I can not find it. Look at his 1996 ad.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/03/mit t_romney_is.html
Now look at his record. Take a tour of the Boston Globe (NYTimes). Romney fought for conservative principles harder than candidates in predominantly conservative states did. He wanted a lot. And he got a lot—from a state with 85% opposition.
On fiscal policy, he fought to drive down the cost of business. He brought spending and taxes down. On social issues he fought against same sex marriage. In fact he is the only candidate to articulate the nexus of family and economics at the FRC. And his record as governor is clear as Dr. John Willke, a founder of the Pro Life Movement, has said, "Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life. Every decision he made as Governor was on the side of life.”
As far as snapshots of opinion, Giuliani is the one with a wall. After decades of national exposure, the most name recognition, he fares really poorly in all the early states. And neither Fox News nor his chattering class has helped him.
|
|
Perhaps you need a primer on icky. Icky is BJ Clinton and a blue dress. Icky is Hillary Clinton kissing Arafat's wife, icky is Bill and Hillary walking together in bathing suits on the beach for a photo op. And on our side, icky is Rudy dressed up as woman, and bringing his mistress into the same house as his wife. And grandpa Fred (the "Tennessee Stud") womanizing while in the senate, and marrying a woman younger than his own children who can't seem to cover herself properly.
How on earth can you call Romney icky with a straight face? |
|
Money quote from the New Yorker article:
Romney sells himself as a true convert. He not only shifts positions; he often claims to be the most passionate advocate of his new stances. It’s one of the reasons that his metamorphosis from liberal Republican to committed right-winger seems so jarring. In 1994, in his race for the Senate, he didn’t simply argue that he was a defender of gay rights; he claimed to be a stronger advocate than his opponent, Edward Kennedy. Today, he’s not just a faithful conservative but the only Republican candidate who represents “the Republican wing of the Republican Party.” He brings a salesman’s bravado and certainty to issues. .” . . .
But, while giving customers exactly what they want may be normal in the corporate world, it can be costly in politics. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/29/071029fa_fac t_lizza?printable=true
|
|
|
After 8 years of seemingly ouija-board-based executive decisionmaking, we need a hardnosed, clear-thinking businessman and governor with a track record of success -- Romney. He should run on his track record, and leave the ideological/theological posturing to others. |
|
|
|
Well, Patrick get out of your pajamas, put down you tabloid-typer, and do it--query the attendee votes verses the non-attendee votes.
Fisrt, Romney spoke in the evening when the poll was closed.
Second, you have a total poll of mail, online and attendees. The other poll, the spin poll, and the "on-site" poll only measures 900 people—those that opted not to use the online poll. What happened to the other 1000 attendees? They did not vote? Nah, they voted online for a mix of candidates.
|
|
Joe-
Cutting and pasting a negative article is a start, but let's deconstruct your argument and see if it stands up.
First, notice you did not (and I would argue cannot) rebut anything in my original post.
Now. According to your "money quote" Romney ran as a defender of gay rights. What does that mean? Has he ever supported gay marriage? No. What does he now oppose (very articulately I might add)? Gay marriage. No contradiction in position.
What did Mitt support in 94? The fair treatment of gays. He does not believe they should be discriminated against. This has not changed. No contradiction here either.
You see, the gay lobby tries to equate their inability to get married as "discrimination" and "unfair treatment." However, reasonable people disagree, and Mitt is one of them. One can consistently be for the fair treatment and non-discrimination of gays and simultaneously oppose gay marriage by judicial fiat.
Your problem is to equate "gay rights" with "gay marriage" and this is simply not a position Mitt has ever taken (if he had, it would be posted all over utube).
Next....
|
|
|
|
Really, no contradictions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4 Massachusetts values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
On abortion, gay rights, 1994 Senate Race
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb4LEYtjv6o
Mitt on being pro Massachusett tough gun laws, "I won't chip away at them, I support them, they protect us and provide for our safety."
Romney supporting McCain and President's immigration reform plan in 2005: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDVKWBVk6xA
Call it what you will, explain it away as unimportant, but this stuff hurts Mitt Romney's chances. You can have unpopular positions with the base (God knows Rudy does)--but if you start coming off as a phony you are in big trouble.
If Mitt wants to get around this he can stop pandering and start talking straight. I liked this Mitt Romney a lot. http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/mitt-unplugge d-.html It was honest, it was passionate, and I finally thought I was seeing the real Mitt Romney. If Mitt really wants to win, he has to trust we will like and support the real Mitt Romney. |
|
Notice how the unpopular Mitt clips don't work as links anymore? Pretty pathetic on Hugh's part. Do you really think Hillary will not have supporters cutting and pasting this stuff into campaign ads to run against Mitt if he is the nominee?
Mitt in 1994 letter to Log Cabin Republicans: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ RomneyLogCabinLetter.pdf
I do not think there is anything wrong with this letter, but the current Mitt Romney is sure not promoting rolling back don't ask don't tell.
So those are a few of the changes Brett McDonald I have questions about. If it is a choice between a guy like Rudy who (warts and all) tells you what he thinks (even if it is not what you want to hear) or a guy like Mitt who is impressive but aims to please and tells you what he thinks you want. . . I will take the guy like Rudy. I have a pretty good instinct on when I am being played. |
|
Huckabee raised taxation if I am not mistaken Mr. Ruffini.
I think you underestimate the tired bias about his Mormon nature and the conception of some to be afraid of a Candidate that doesn't fit a certain stereotype.
He's bright, savvy, well composed, with a very successful record.
I disagree with your premise that he has hit a ceiling, as he continues to lead polls in the actually primary states.
Liberals, including the fake Democrat Posters on this board pretending to be Conservatives, seem afraid of the Man.
After 2004, we watched a certain Conservative fashion grab hold of many, but it doesn't reflect the vast silent majority.
Romney and Rudy remain on the top, and have great potential.
|
|
"But I feel icky whenever I hear him debate."
mmm...
Sorry Mr. Ruffini, but this seems incredibly weak.
Haven't you been around truly sharp intelligent human beings who have a great grasp of issues?
Are you trying to play to the few who lack a reasoned insight in regards to the fine character of Mr. Romney?
He's top notch, and I find a great deal of the 'questioning' about Mr. Romney to be just as manufactured as some call his appearance.
There is little doubt, some have a bias against the Man's religion, and it is rather ugly.
Then there are some who feel if the Man doesn't sound like a Cowboy, he isn't legit.
It is all quite pathetic.
In fact, he and Rudy could have the best abilities, experiences, talents to be President.
I understand your expression is an offering of help, but you only seem to have brought the worst out of some of the comments.
Romney's answer to the Hillary folly was simply outstanding.
'Internship' ?
LOL
classic... |
|
"Liberals, including the fake Democrat Posters on this board pretending to be Conservatives, seem afraid of the Man."
As a real-deal liberal (I know, I know--"oxymoron"), I can tell you that Mitt isn't scary at all. Rudy is scary. Rudy can forcefully and charismatically articulate the worst elements of the American soul. Huckabee is scary. He is a genuinely good guy that the base would vote for. But Mitt? He's just a craven gasbag who will say anything to get elected.
I've never voted for a Republican in my life and I'm telling you that Mitt is about as scary as the five year olds who show up at your doorstep on Halloween.
|
|
A lot of us look at Mitt Romney and see a guy who panders, just like John Kerry. It is not Mitt's religion (at least for me)--I admire the vast majority of Mormons I know and look at his membership in the LDS Church as a positive in his favor. Mitt Romney is certainly far more substantive than John Kerry, but he does seem to be on a plateau in this campaign.
"For Romney, the danger is that of going too far in attempting to please every constituency. In doing so, he may have underestimated the importance of authenticity, an asset that in politics is sometimes more valuable than ideological purity." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/29/071029fa_fac t_lizza?printable=true "If Romney's campaign continues on its current path, he'll likely be folding up his tent shortly after Iowa." http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/ 000/014/233siked.asp?pg=2
You can keep covering your ears HNAV and pretending this does not matter, but it does. |
|
Actually, that's not true. During the "Open Primary" period in California, I made a couple of "lesser of evils" votes on the Republican side. Unfortunately, Scalia and his gang of judicial activists took away the open primary system from California voters.
But with regards to Romney, where is the magnificent bio? How is he anything other than another son of privilege who got bored reading financial statements? |
|
|
PC - I am not the outrageous LDS basher - my beef with Mitt is he dodged the draft during Viet Nam, but now want a bigger military, a military he could not be bothered to serve in. |
|
|
Political Liberal - you have me on the floor laughing with your 'magnificient bio' quote. One reason our political class is so out of touch is the hereditary nature of these 'leaders.' In 2000 we had a President's son running against a Senator's son. Hmm, did Mitt's dad the governor help get him his religious draft deferment? |
|
Mitt deferment issues.Didn't neo or somebody here point out the availability of therapy and medication for that serious of an obsession a week or so ago?
Patrick voiced some of my concerns about Mitt.
I'd like to see Hugh respond to the points.It would help many of us seeing both the real concerns and real support.I'd like,for instance,to
see some passion to kill the jihadists and engage Iran in a Read Our Lips reality check.
I know Rudy wants to kill the b--tards.And,I love what he did in NYC to the Scumbags & gangsters.
Just a tiny bit worried that he's not got the mental balance for the Huge Job.
|
|
Re Mitt’s business background: I don’t see this as the positive you do. Just as the unpopular Bush’s southern origins are hurting Fred and Huck and thereby helping Mitt and Rudy, Bush’s MBA and business background isn’t going to do other businessmen any good. Post Clinton, America was sick of lawyers and went for business instead; post Bush, the nation’s mood may swing back toward prosecutors like Rudy and Fred (I know Mitt has a JD as well as an MBA, but it’s as a businessman he’s regarded, not a lawyer).
And Bush aside, we live in a very anti-big-business climate. As stupid as it is, people hear “venture capitalist” and think “robber baron.”
In fact, I don’t think business success has ever been an electoral strength. America has elected generals (seven), an actor, legacies, governors. But not a businessman. There is a conservative tendency to overrate the general appeal of those who have made it on their own in private practice instead of climbing the government ladder a la Bill Clinton. But the nation as a whole doesn’t share the same negative view of overly ambitious pols or the positive view of successful buinessmen. Never has.
Some of the rest of Mitt’s bio hurts more than it helps. True, Mitt helped clean up the scandal-plagued SLC Olympics. But as always, millions of voters will only digest half the story: they know the Olympics were corrupt, they hear Mitt was involved, they leap to the wrong conclusion that he was part of the problem.
We’ve seen how his five sons have been used against him – again unfairly. This isn’t a WW2 where we’re even trying to get 8 million men into uniform, and certainly it’s a reach to blame Mitt for not somehow “sending” his 38 year-old son Tagg off to war. But it’s out there.
And it doesn’t help that Mitt rode out his own war in France, while his contemporaries like McCain bled and suffered torture. |
|
I don't doubt that Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani would be more or less equally effective at prosecuting the war.
The difference is that Fred Thompson doesn't need a dictionary to know what federalism is.
I was a Democrat until 2000. I voted for George Bush in 2004
I might hold my nose and vote for Romney or Giuliani (I doubt I could do even that for Honest Johnnny Quote Constitution GoodGovernment McKeating).
I _donated money_ to Fred Thompson _before he declared._
Who hath ears, let him use a Q-Tip. |
|
We have not heard much from Hugh in the last few days. No comments on Mitt's performance at the debate. Patrick is raising questions about Mitt's viability as a candidate and Dean is over on Weekly Standard plugging Huckabee. What's up with that? Repackaging yourself as 'product' and pandering to everyone fails the authenticity test.
Hugh also tried to sell us on the idea this was a two man race, Mitt and Rudy, but that is not the case, the field is wide open, Fred did well in the debate, and military hero McCain has lived to fight another day. And Huckabee was the favorite at the family conference. Mitt got laughed when he tried to sell himself as the real conservative. |
|
Mental disease? Draft dodger Clinton was elected in 1992, and look what we got with him. Bush and Kerry's respective military service was the number one issue in the 2004 election, so its an issue that is not going away, as much as you would like it too.
At the debates, veteran McCain's gravitas is apparent, and he got off the best line of the night saying he was tied up during Woodstock. What was Mitt doing at the time? |
|
Amen to Brett McDonald's comment! I wish I could have said it as well myself. I think the main point of this post is good advice to Romney's campaign: "Focus people on what no other candidate can even come close to competing with: Your resume, your personal life, your experience."
Amen, Patrick and amen Brett McDonald! |
|
When a candidate's stock rises so much just because he got off a good laugh line or a zinger to another candidate, what does that say about the American citizen? It seems not enough people think critically about the candidates: their abilities or their values.
It's one thing to admire John McCain for his service, and his toughness for coming through his POW experiences well, but to equate that into "therefore he'd make a better president than someone who didn't serve in the military" is poor logic.
I'm afraid we'll probably all get what we deserve, and maybe we are deserving less and less over time. |
|
Is pointless. He won't go any further than Iowa. The only thing he's good for is to hurt Romney and help Rudy.
He is admired by some for his debate performances. But, I'm with robm on the insignificance of one-liners - so what if Huck can be funny or poignant during debates. The jokes are planned and he lies when he claims they are spontaneous.
Behind his speaking ability is a man who will raise your taxes for a "good cause", and who is soft on illegal immigration. Let's call him what he is - a big government republican. He's NOT conservative where it counts - your pocketbook. |
|
|
This man will never be President of the United States. Never. Hugh knows it, and is starting the distancing campaign. Romney's mormonism and the fact that he has no real principals (flip-flop), makes him damaged goods. Being a draft dodger does not help either. While patriotic men were fighting the Viet Cong, Romney was hiding in France. The left will compare him to Warren Jeffs. The right wing views him as as plastic robot. The robot image is a derivation from being programed all his life by a cult. |
|
To try to discredit Romney with Mormonism. Ray, it's you who tries in vain to compare Romney to Jeffs, and you really hurt your argument when you do so. It makes you so transparent.
You may need some meds to get you through the next few months, because Romney is going to get the nomination. It boils down to him for a number of reasons. Might as well get prepared. |
|
|
I said the left will compare him to Warren Jeffs. Warren Jeffs is a criminal who happens to be a polygamy practicing mormon. Romney is not a criminal. Romney's draft dodger status won't hurt him with the left, but the right does not like draft dodgers, or Flip Flop, Flip Flop. |
|
The Senate will vote tomorrow an another amnesty bill.
Why is this blog ignoring it?
http://www.numbersusa.com/index |
|
You are posting Jeff's name as often as possible in your anti-Romney comments. You are hoping for guilt by association. That only works for people like yourself which amounts to about 3 people. (you, richard and Jack.)
Everyone knows Jeffs is not a Mormon. He's is a lunatic-nutcase-pervert who is not a memebr of the LDS church, and has never been.
Prove otherwise. |
|
|
That there is no such thing as a "polygamy practicing Mormon"? It's not possible. |
|
|
Tell Jeffs and his followers he is not a mormon. They will laugh at you. Been to West Jordan lately? |
|
LDS Restorationist groups: Some fundamentalist Mormon groups in Utah, Arizona, and other states in the western U.S. still engage in polygyny. They have been excommunicated from the main Mormon church -- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- because of this practice. According to the Attorney General of Utah, about 40,000 Fundamentalist Mormons still live according to "the principle" of polygyny as established by Joseph Smith. 2
According to Principle Voices of Polygamy, a group which promotes plural marriage, there are about 37,000 people live in polygynous families in the western U.S. Of this number, on the order of 10,000 live in the border-straddling twin cities of Hildale, UT, and Colorado City, AZ.
|
|
Ray, I had the thought too that Hugh is starting to distance himself from Mitt. Hugh used to go war room on negative MSM articles about Mitt, he has not been doing so lately, and Hugh has fallen silent on the last debate.
Note that Patrick and Dean already seem to have gotten off the bus. And how many drive home listeners stuck in their cars turn the dial when Hugh starts his endless Mitt adds?
My guess is Hugh will dump Mitt and go for Rudy, whose poll numbers suggest better election chances.
As I have been saying since the beginning, Mitt is a fine man, but he just does not appeal to GOP base voters, for the reasons listed in all the above. |
|
|
Hugh is not going to go down with listing SS Romney. Hugh has already abandoned ship. He is currently using silence and having his soldiers walk point against Romney. This has been going on forabout three weeks. I agree he is slowly working his way into the Rudy camp. This is a very calculated move on Hugh's part. Eventually, Ronmey will be persona non grata on this site, as well as the rest of TH. Praeger and Medved attack Romney almost daily. Once Hugh is firmly in the Rudy camp, the attacks on Romney will be ruthless from Medved and Praeger. |
|
Ray, yes, that's about right. Hey, if you want a friend, get a dog, as they say, this is hardball politics.
Don't listen to Praeger or Medved much, Rush seems to be keeping his powder dry, and Laura Inghram does not like Rudy on abortion grounds.
Funny, none of these folks talk much about the role of conservative talk radio in pushing for one candidate over another. I wonder how much the repsective campaigns try to get thier messages on talk radio. For a while Hugh was giving up the whole first hour of his show to let explain what he really meant to say in the previous debate.
Any of the shows coming out for Fred or Huck?
|
|
|
To those who call me crazy: you can ignore my posts or offer counter arguments, but labeling those who disagree with you as crazy is reminiscent of the old CCCP, who put those who did not believe in mental hospitals. This method is also used by cults to shut up dissent. |
|
Joe-
Notice (1) you have not rebutted my original post, (2) you have not rebutted my second post entitled "It's a Start." Indeed, in the '94 debate, the one thing Romney does say about homosexuality is that the boy scouts of America should be able to function as a private organization, setting its own rules. So, I will assume you concede that Mitt's position on homosexuality has been consistent.
Gun-control. I don't see your argument. Remember, state a conclusion, state specific facts (i.e. things he said or did) and reason. He was running as a republican in MA and promised not to try and change their gun-control laws. So what? Argue something.
The immigration reform bill recently defeated (in 2007) was not written in 2005 so I do not see how Romney could have supported it in 2005?
Finally, you post some clips on abortion: YES, YOU ARE ONTO SOMETHING HERE, HE HAS CHANGED HIS POSITION ON ABORTION. On abortion he has changed his "political stance" (his personal stance has not changed). Fine, good. If you are anti-abortion, you have a political convert. If you believe he changed his political stance to gain republican votes, fine, that is a reasonable position to take. But, he has dealt with this change over and over again and I will not re-rash.
To recap: you concede his life accomplishments as evidence of strong inner principles (or at least cannot rebut the argument). You cannot argue that he's changed his political stance on anything but abortion (to which he's articulately admitted) and you continue to state conclusions like these things "hurt his chances."
Once again, the polling contradicts your conclusion.
So, I repeat, make an argument (you see, I get tired of pulling out a possible arguments from youtube videos). Or, in the alternative, admit that Romney is the most qualified, most intelligent and most personal worthy individual in the presidential race.
|
|
"Any of the shows coming out for Fred or Huck?"
I don't think so at this time. It seems to be Rudy all the way. The Republicans need to be careful here. They do not want to offend any of the mormon money that will be needed in the general. Dennis Praeger has been the best at attacking Romney while sounding like he isn't. Praeger is the main point man on TH for attempting to get people away from Romney and brushing them towards Rudy. Read the latest article by HH on the New Yorker. This thing is as slippery as any thing I've seen him write. The is slowly ramping down the passion for Mitt, and hinting at Mitt's problems.
|
|
There.
What absolute nonsense.Registered Demowit until Dec.'06.Haven't voted for the boobs since 1980
(and am mortified to admit I voted for Caw-tuh
twice...).I Like Republicans because they typically want the Bad Guys KILLED and the offensive continued in World War IV.Like JFK's innaugural address Jan.20,1960.Liberty.
I Believe--Yikes--those who've not served in uniform are entirely equipped and capable of killing jihadist vermin and standing firm against Iran and others.Let's see...how to put this...I'm FOR nuclear power,though I've never been a nuclear scientist.I'm for vastly expanded USA oil
production,but never have I drilled a well.I believe in the total destruction of al Qaeda & its offshoots in Radical Islam though I didn't have family members in the Towers or airliners.I believe that on September 11,2001 the axis of the world shifted.Those who ignore that truth--mostly Demowits in our country--must not be honored with power.The times are far too dangereous to be entrusted to non-serious people. |
|
I read the NewYorker article, a great read, and seemed to be both fair and capture Mitt' plusses and also his problems with electability. That quote he gives to Hugh is the powerpoint MBA talking points that makes him look robotic.
I go back and forth on Rudy. Abortion is a big issue with me and I would normally not consider Rudy at all. But he would be the best at fighting the jihadists, and I suspect that the smart GOP money sees him as the best to go against Herself. But in the final analysis is comes down to the primary voters, and unlike us, most are not paying much attention.
I watched 10 minutes of the debate and switched to the Tribe/Sox game.
|
|
|
Hugh is NEVER going to jump ship on Romney! You are living in some fantasy world of your own creation. Don't worry, in 3 months people will forget how wrong you were, and you'll be on to some other wrongheaded pontifications. |
|
PC - Like Hugh's lady, Harriet Myers, is now sitting on the Supreme Court? I knew she would never be appointed, was I living in fantasy world then? No, Hugh was, just as he is now; like he was about the Tribe.
Did Hugh support real conservative Tom McClintok in Ca once Arnold threw his hat in the ring?
Hugh's purpose is getting Republicans elected, the individual candidates are fungible. You don't increase your party's power by sticking with candidates that can't get about 12% in the national polls.
Like I say, if you want a friend get a dog.
|
|
PC - And its a post here on Hugh's blog by Patrick that Mitt is blowing it and turning himself into the next John Kerry. I did not come up with that, its an official post here on the blog. Do you think we would see a post comparing Mitt to Kerry (who, by the way, served in Viet Nam) here a month ago? Think about it.
A month ago all I heard from Hugh is that Mitt was a man with a plan, and the plan was going according to plan. All the campaigns have resources to better polling than the general public, and I sense something is going on, and its not in favor of Mitt.
If you are correct, where is Hugh ballyhooing Mitt's last debate performance? |
|
Richard_223 wrote;
----------------
"Hugh's purpose is getting Republicans elected..."
----------------
Yes, thank heavens, because the alternative is that...Democrats will be elected !
|
|
his never being in uniform?Doesn't that kill it for you?
Rudy seems,for me, to be much tougher and more nimble than any other candidate.He kicked the hell out of the crooks,grifters,gangsters and other lowlifes in NYC.Pretty soon after he took the mayorship,one started realizing that the fragrant smell of pee was no longer in the subways.Looks like the Clintons unleashed the sleazebucket,Charley Rangel,on Rudy's personal life yesterday.Awwwww,yes.'They that soweth,so too shall they reapeth.'Rudy isn't the least bit afraid of taking the gloves off with her ladyship,
which is another reason to like him. 1.)Where was Lady MacClinton in the days after 9-11 when hundreds of funerals & memorial services were being held in NYC? Rudy was at dozens & dozens.
Remember the firefighters' families booing her & Bubba with furious gusto? 2.)Why has the womens lib poster girl stuck sleazily & codependently with a decades long serial filanderer?Overweening
ambition & appetite? Or,just weak and sickly dependent? Oh,c'mon Hillary,dive into Rudy's 'personal life'.Make our national day,Babycakes. 3.)What DOES Bubba do on those overseas speaking junkets? Bimbos in every port...
Hmmm....Morbidly curious that they're going to step on their whatchamacallits. |
|
As the daughter and wife of retired soldiers who both served honorably in combat, let me point out the obvious: Military service does NOT mean that a man is fit for office. Two words: KERRY and MURTHA.
In between all those hooahs and grunts of semper fi, let me introduce a bit of latin you may not be familiar with: nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus
Virtue is the only true nobility.
Scoundrels and idiots have worn the uniform, too. Military service is no litmus test. Mitt's missionary service in France was not a special deferment.
FYI, cadets are given a 2 year leave of absence at the academies right now, during a time of war, to serve as Mormon missionaries (having served dinner to more than a few of them during our time at West Point, I know this firsthand.)
I'd love to have a clear thinking, conservative, retired military candidate to choose. However, the first two characteristics are requirements, the last is merely a preference. |
|
So sooooory,
Mitt dodged the draft taking a cush job working for the mormons in France, drinking fine wines and courting beautiful girls. Flip flopper draft dodger. |
|
Can you be any more ignorant?
"Romney was hiding in France." "Mitt dodged the draft taking a cush job working for the mormons in France, drinking fine wines and courting beautiful girls. Flip flopper draft dodger."
Apparently you have no clue what it means to be a Mormon missionary. Nor do you realize that Mormons typically serve missions during that age in their life - war time or not.
"The robot image is a derivation from being programed all his life by a cult."
Funny, the only brainless group-think I hear is coming out of your mouth. Perhaps you should actually look into things before posting your drivel?
I'm embarrassed that someone like you is a member of my party. You're an ignorant bigot, period, and I only wish there were a block button on this comment board so I wouldn't have to be exposed to your bile.
Let's hope other Republican voters are more informed than you are, whether they vote for Romney or not. Knowing *you* are legally allowed to cast a ballot is unsettling to say the least. |
|
Republican voters are informed, that's why the flip flopper draft dodger is 10% at best in the national polls. This is politics baby, and if you can't take the heat, go on a mission to France or some where else safe.
"Knowing *you* are legally allowed to cast a ballot is unsettling to say the least."
Would you like to change this fact? You sound like a control freak. Do you think you are better than me? Mr. Self Perfect. Your attitude would have fit well in the Germany of 1939. |
|
CabalMember:
Re: "Rudy seems,for me, to be much tougher and more nimble than any other candidate.He kicked the hell out of the crooks,grifters,gangsters and other lowlifes in NYC."
You forgot to mention "wives". If Rudy is the nominee, in the debate Hillary will play the symphathy card. Rudy will come at her too hard and every woman in America will vote for Hillary. Mitt is much more soft-spoken and kind to women.
And one more point. Jim Cramer also referred to Romney as "Midas". |
|
I note that Ray's obsession with polygamy is getting another walk in the park today.
Romney did not dodge the draft. His number was just never called up. The LDS church has been calling missionaries at the ages of 19 - 26 for over 170 years through numerous wars (they did stop sending out missionaries for a period during WW2). Mitt served his mission at the normal time that many serve. There have been plenty over the years who have served a mission and then been drafted - Mitt wasn't drafted its that simple. He didn't volunteer that's a fact but more candidates for President have not served in the military than have - not an issue that makes him unelectable. Now if you want to see creative ways to get out of the draft then Bill Clinton wrote that playbook.
People like Richard and Ray who seem to have a real beef with Mitt's Mormonism can't seem to accept the wave of evangelical endorsements of Mitt. How can that be? Surely they must know that millions of Americans think like Ray - that polygamy is a stain on Romney that renders him unelectable? Conservative Christian Republicans in the two States that have seen the most of Romney beg to differ. Even his SC polling is steadily climbing so that tells us something.
Hugh is convinced that Mitt would make an excellent nominee. You guys attack him because he posts too much about Mitt then attacks him when he doesn't post enough saying he's going cold on him - get you stories straight why don't you. |
|
The R. person ain't worth the spit to wet an envelope.Thank you for your family's service.
R. and his buddy wouldn't last one morning in Freshman Logic 101 with that inane argument.
Mitt is a very smart,able guy.Needs more passion,probably.I'm for Rudy,but have no trouble supporting Romney if it comes to him.
BTRemodel: You have a very LOW opinion of America's women.Judging from what a goodly number have told me..a.)She by NO means has them in her
graft lined pockets. b.)Alot of women like Rudy.He's tough,strong,manly,protective and is all
for killing the Islamist Butchers dedicated to their kids' destruction. c.)There is a strong visceral negative reaction to Lady MacClinton from many,many women.They DON'T LIKE HER,NOR DO THEY TRUST HER.
And,unlike your thesis,they aren't stupid and single minded.I'm married to a highly educated
non-political girl of the independent kind.She'd
be horsewhipped before voting for Hillary. |
|
|
I'm a Romney fan, and I couldn't figure out why I, too, felt "icky" after the last debate. You're right, and I hope his campaign makes the appropriate course correction to show this man's other strengths. |
|
No alcohol, no sex, no dating, no TV, no "hip" music, no movies, no phone calls home or to girl friends. And the following behaviors disqualify a young man from serving a mission except for proven long-term sincere repentance: alcohol, drugs, tobacco, sex (of all degrees), pornography.
It is a 2-year commitment 100% dedicated to the Lord and preaching his gospel.
This at a time in life when most young men are loosed from home-life constraints and sowing wild oats at college.
I'm not trying to say an LDS mission is comparable to military service. I love our soldiers. If I was young again I would consider it a great honor to be able to serve with them. But an LDS mission requires a young man with unique honor, will-power, love for God, and determination. It is not for the weak minded, and it is certainly not cush. |
|
---Sigh---
I made arguments. If you can look at those YouTube clips and not see any inconsistencies between Mitt Romney's positions in 1994, 2002, and 2005 versus today. . . well we have to agree to disagree. We see things differently.
I personally disagree with Mitt on gay marriage and a constitutional amendment (my position is it should be a matter left to state legislatures and the federal and state courts should stay out of it), agree with Mitt on the Boy Scouts issue, and think he has moved to the right to pander to religious conservatives. Not a big deal, but he has moved.
As for abortion, gun control and immigration reform, Mitt has switched 180 degrees from his positions on these subjects. Given his past statements, to accuse Mitt of pandering is not an extreme position. In fact, I suspect most people agree with me. If you do not, fair enough. Nothing I can say to you will change your mind.
I do not hate your favorite candidate (I think he would be a good President), I just do not think he is a better candidate than Rudy, Fred, or John McCain. If Mitt is the nominee, then I will vote for him over Hillary. Unforatunately, I worry Hillary will whoop him (which is why I support Rudy, Fred and John McCain right now).
|
|
Yes. Yes, you are. And you making this 'disclaimer' doesn't change the fact that the rest of your post did EXACTLY that." - JackShiite
Well, Jack, we're impressed you can read robm's mind, because you clearly didn't understand what he wrote. He is obviously countering Ray's lame insinuation that Mormon missionary work is a vacation in excess - and Ray hasn't the faintest clue what he's talking about.
I'm done reading these comments on this site. A handful of uninformed bigots take the discussion right down the drain every time Romney's name is mentioned. I feel like I've traveled back to the early 1800s with the ignorant, inflammatory dreck a few of you pump out with glee. Some of these inane rants reach DailyKos caliber. Ray's tossing the "Nazi card" was a particularly interesting demonstration of "nothing intelligent to say."
Fortunately, I believe that our mindless friends Ray and JackShiite comprise a tiny minority in our party. You two would make excellent liberals.
See you at the polls. |
|
The discussion of making comparisons of LDS missions and military service is silly. I served a mission in the 80's, and I'm currently serving as the XO of an Engineer unit in the Army. Both represent a sevice to one's fellow man. I am proud to have been a missionary, and I am proud to be a soldier fighting the enemies of the United States.
In the military we have rules to live by and are punished with article 15's or courts martials if we do something stupid. Young Mormon Elders live with rules, but only with the honor system --what they do is between them and the Lord. This is remarkable for a young man with the sex drive of a bulldozer and other appetites for fun, excitement etc. I believe this is what the earlier post was simply trying to say.
This does not take away from the great work and terrible suffering being experienced by all our American youth in the mid-east. I have walked in rooms containing the stainless steel caskets of our brethren and sisters with bright fields of blue, with red & white stripes. I have seen soldiers packing up the belongings of their dead battle buddies to be sent back home to parents and wives. Nothing can be taken away from or diminish these heroes. As the Lord himself once said: Greater love hath no man, than that he would lay down his life for his friends. |
|
What are you saying? Are you telling us gentiles how pure, and above the rest of us your people are? Those may be the "rules", but the facts are different. How about the mishy caught in bed with Mission Presiden't wife in London? Was he excomumicated. I spent a lot of time in Utah hanging out with a lot of cool jack mormon types. They had great mission stories.
We all know the mormons are perfect, and the rest of us are going to hell, because we are not members of, "The one true church." I do not want a president that "knows" he is better than the rest of us gentile's. Mitt Romney is a SINNER, got it, capice. He is also a political con man flip flopper, as well as a draft dodger.
|
|
Joe-
Your last note had an air of finality to it, so I will let it go as well.
However, in parting, let me reiterate, that you did not make arguments. You posted a few videos and then stated conclusions. I watched all the videos and except for abortion, I don't see your arguments. I would ask you (and everyone) to re-read our first exchange, you accused Gov. Romney of having no deeply held principles. I replied with an argument. That is where it started and that is where I will end. Gov. Romney has lived a life imbued with principle and service. I'm glad to read you would support him, but I hope it's sooner rather than later. Please no longer make negative (or positive) assertions without an argument to support.
Take care and go Mitt |
|
richard_223 writes
"...labeling those who disagree with you as crazy is reminiscent of the old CCCP, who put those who did not believe in mental hospitals. This method is also used by cults to shut up dissent."
Kind of like so many of the good ol boy Christians that call Mormons crazy and call them brainwashed cult members for refusing to prescribe to good ol boy's version and interpretation of scripture. They want to shut up anyone who doesnt believe they way they do. Just go anywhere on this website or anywhere on the net and you'll see that. Hi Ray. |
|
Yes, Mitt Romney is perfect, he has never done anything wrong in his life. He will get his own planet to rule over, but he won't be the president on this planet. Besides, why fool around being president, when he can have his own planet, and be god!
Joe, is right like usual, and has explained in detail that Mitt is a flip flopper who will say anything to anyone in order to live his dream. |
|
|
you seem to be in your own little world. |
|
I do not want to be too harsh on Mitt. I think all politicians pander a bit. They have to, it is the nature of the beast.
But it is critically important not to pander too much, because if you do people stop believing you. That is what happened to John Kerry. That is what is going to happen to Mitt Romney if he is not careful (and it may already be too late). And I am not saying Mitt Romney = John Kerry (even despite Kerry's Vietnam service). Mitt Romney is a substantive guy, a skilled administrator, with real ideas--I just wish he would spend more time promoting that and finding Mitt's voice rather than trying to suck up to the conservative wing of the party. Brett McDonald does not have to believe me, he can read Dean Barnett's take on it. Or is Brett going to say Dean made no good arguments (and really hates Mormons too). http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/ 000/014/233siked.asp
When you go from one extreme to another without sufficiently explaining why, you lose credibility. Doesn't matter if you are John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney. The reasonable inference remains, Mitt changed postitions because what sells in Massachusetts does not sell in the Republican primaries.
Sometimes it is like watching an episode of Mad Men (but without the booze, cigarettes, and fooling around with the girls in the office). |
|
|
Very well said Patrick - that sums it up exactly! |
|
|
I agree that he went way over the line and played republicans for fools. Mitt Would have run as a democrat if thought that could help him win. If he gets the nod, the flip flop video's will be played over and over on TV and Radio. Hillary is hoping for a Romney win. I think Mitt could care less about issue's facing America. He wants to be president for his own personal glory. Keep up the great potings, Joe. |
|
I frankly don't get how Mitt Romney even needs to out-conservative Fred Thompson. He already has.
Thompson is a man who refuses to pledge not to raise taxes, who isn't sure whether we need a border fence "of brick and mortar" (yeah, way to go with the virtual fence, Fred), who doesn't support protecting the unborn under the 14th amendment, and who doesn't believe in the Federal Marriage Amendment. Who voted against increasing fines on employers who hire illegals, who voted against creating an employment verification system for illegals.
And what about Huckabee? As in open-borders, nanny state Huckabee who absolutely raised taxes in Arkanas. Yes, he's the most genunine social conservative in the race with any traction. But he's weak on the other issues, again.
Perhaps the article does hit on some valid points. Frankly, I'm a lot more interested in someone's track record that most. Romney has laid a path of success far superior to any other candidate in this race--on either side of the aisle. It's not even close.
And what's worse, he hasn't reversed these positions at all. He's only reiterated them after they've proved to be failures over and over again.
Don't even get me started on the trial lawyer who opposes tort reform. He knows how the system works, and he still endorses a federalist policy (which he know doesn't solve a thing given this nation's long history of venue shopping).
Fred Thompson is weak on so many issues it's ridiculous. |
|
Before you criticize me, read my posts.
Joe: I have not accused anyone of hating Mormons. Where did you get that?
Ray: I have not argued that "Mitt is perfect." And now I will accuse you not of hating Mormons but of being ignorant.
You obviously have never heard of the Christian doctrine of divinization or theosis. Your crude characterization of LDS beliefs shows your ignorance. Read up on the doctrine, it has been believed by Christians in every century since Peter first discusses it in the New Testament. The Eastern Orthodox church has a highly developed and long standing tradition in this regard. And yes, LDS also believe the doctrine.
So, read my posts before you criticize me or put words in my mouth and read some Christian theology and history before you post on doctrines/beliefs you know nothing about.
But again, this should not be about Mormonism, notice, that you are the ones interjecting the topic into the conversation. Why? I assume ignorance (and hope not hate).
I will gladly read Dean Barnett's take and see if he puts forth any sound arguments, because you two sure haven't. While I'm reading, perhaps you two could follow suit.
I apologize for the personal nature of this post, but I could not hide my irritation at having words put in my mouth and obvious ignorance on a completely tangential topic. |
|
I liked the piece. Especially the part that matters:
"His brain truly doesn't have an off switch. He is always thinking, always calculating. He has a restless mind that surrounds and smothers every issue and every problem. In truth, his combination of electric intelligence and relentless intellectual curiosity is his greatest strength."
This is what I want in a president.
Thanks for posting it. |
|
You are right, its Eichendorff and Portlandmom who get all whinny about prejudice. Then again, just because you think people are out to get you doesn't always mean you are paranoid. Just don't group me in with the Mormonphobes around here.
I also want a president with intellectual curiosity and drive, but I want one with core convictions and philosophy too. That was Reagan's great strength, which translated to him being a great president. Mitt needs to communicating his core values, not what he thinks I want to hear. |
|
|
The campaign has just started running an ad that I think does exactly what Patrick is looking for. See http://tv.mittromney.com/?=showid=450503. Boy, these guys are fast! |
|
Remember that Reagan also experiened major political shifts. His record as governor was far from perfect - he even signed an abortion law. Reagan evolved more than people care to remember.
I don't think you will find another candidate on either side right now who has more intellectual curiosity and drive than Romney, or core convictions. I mean, really, who can you point to?
I think you are exagerating the pandering. All of them are doing it, with the exception of Tancredo and Paul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|