Tuesday, October 23, 2007
|
|
The New Yorker's Mitt Romney: Authentically GOP
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
12:38 PM
|
Ryan Lizza pens a long profile of Mitt Romney for The New Yorker. It is an unintentionally funny piece as Lizza has the perfect pitch for Beltway-Manhattan media elites struggling to understand the dynamics of a GOP race they simply cannot fathom. One clue about Lizza's shortcomings as a reporter of GOP politics and candidates: He neglects to note that on the issues central to the 2008 agenda of social conservatives --protecting traditional marriage and appointing conservative judges-- Romney is the most reliable of the GOP first-tier would-be nominees. Lizza thinks the tired "flip-flop" label works among GOP voters, but it actually only works for MSMers and already decided Romney opponents. Having addressed a hundred center-right crowds on the campaign of 2008, the concerns about Romney have nothing to do with Romney's move to the right on pro-life issues. Those moves are welcomed and celebrated by conservative activists, and Romney's consistent defense of marriage recognized and admired. The questions about Romney are all about electability: Can a former governor of Massachusetts really beat Senator Clinton?
Rudy is deemed by GOP voters generally as electable but unsatisfactory on the marriage and life issues. Romney is acceptable on the marriage and life issues, but there are worries whether a relative unknown can stay in the ring with Hillary. The New Yorker piece itself will help persuade a new slice of GOP elites who have not yet discovered Romney's extraordinary string of successes in the world of business, non-profits and government. Expect the campaign to be sending reprints of it out by the thousands.
So another MSMer gives Romney a hard look and walks away worried that this indeed might be the sort of candidate that will not only do well in blue states, but capable of rallying the conservative faithful as well --if only he was "authentically conservative." Well, Romney is authentically conservative as those who have been following him for years know, and as polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina indicate primary voters are discovering. MSMers like Lizza can look with furrowed brows on charges of flip-flopping, but there's a reason why a string of high profile evangelical leaders began breaking towards Romney last week --it is time to chose, and he's the best choice for them.
None of this is unexpected. The gathering momentum, the evaporation of the Mormon issue, and the unease among liberal elites at the emergence of Romney as a frontrunner were all spelled out in A Mormon In The White House, a book quoted but not cited by Lizza.
And as the book predicted, it comes down to the choice between Giuliani's appeal that he can beat Hillary versus Romney's assurance that he too can beat her, and will govern in a significantly more conservative way than Giuliani.
|
|
Fox News he can beat Hillary. |
|
Anybody home?
The Dems are pushing through an amnesty, and the vote is tomorrow. Wake up, you fools.
http://www.numbersusa.com/index
|
|
Obviously Hugh watched the debate with closed eyes. Mitt did ...ok. He still seems stilted, robotic and unaccessible. Thompson was the standout along with Huckabee like it or not.
Mitt's about to evaporate himself. |
|
There is no way Romney will make it to be the Republican candidate. He has made way too many mistakes recently and in his past.
He is too much like Bill Clinton: he will do and say anything to get elected.
Romney is too much like an oily politician and people can see it for themselves in the debates. He comes across as a puppet.
We had that already with Bill Clinton who went the way of the polls and the people. Romney is like that as well: he said he was pro-choice simply to get elected in a blue state.
He did it once, he'll do it again.....
FRED THOMPSON ALL THE WAY!!!! |
|
|
did this fear of "Hillary the debater" come from? I can't think of anything that she has done to earn that respect. The stage is set for Romney if he can only learn to stay on message and get involved directly in crises like the endless D.R.E.A.M. Act bills in Congress. Nothing would prove Romney's committment to conservative values than to call for a halt to the cynical tactics by Congress to stuffing very unpopular laws down America's throats. This isn't complicated. |
|
|
Well, it is nice that some people, some elitists read The New Yorker. Their cartoons are marvy. But, if one thinks that a story in that mag will somehow bring more voters, I wrote, voters to Mitt's campaign ,one is deluded. Now Mitt is a good guy and has some good ideas. Somehow, he has not caught on nationally. He may indeed win some early , small state electorally primaries. But, unless one can see him winning Fla.,Pa. NY, Tx. just where is this huge momentum coming from? If he can show he can defeat Her Highness nationally, winning some Purple or Blue states, fine. So far, I cannot nor can you see that! |
|
again ... reassuring us that the Great Leader will prevail, never mind all those explosions in his palaces, all is well and Allah will ensure the Massive Leader's ultimate triumph!
Not!
There's nothing tired about the flip flopper label, because it's true. There's nothing authentically conservative about Mitt Romney ... he's only Republican when running for a Republican primary vote.
Romney still comes in fourth place in national polls behind the supposedly done-for McCain, he's lost his lead in New Hampshire, he regularly comes in third or fifth place in the debates, and the single biggest complaint from voters is that he's a phony. Which he is.
And he's so wishy washy on the GWOT that nobody believes he could stand up to Hillary Clinton in the general election, let alone Ajad in the real war.
Dream on, Bagdad Bob! |
|
book sales, inasmuch as his Mormon in the White House hagiography has plummeted all the way down to #17,460 on the Amazon.com list ... they're offering the book at a 60% discount off published list price.
Must be flying off the shelves!
|
|
Being a dyed-in-the-wool Romney fan, I clicked on the news article and slowly plowed my way through it. Having a social science background, not a financial background (disclaimer: my son has an MBA from Harvard and a BS from BYU - two schools Mitt attended and knew Mitt and family in Belmont), I filled in some knowledge gaps re Baines and Mitt's work philosophy.
It may be that Mitt's background-work experience is more dense than the other candidates of either party and cannot be easily reduced to simple campaign phrases. Because he cannot be easily "coined," we need articles such as the above to give us more data - Mitt's favorite commodity!
In any case, I enjoy the different TownHall views of Romney over the past weeks and months and notice that they generally are less caustic and more factual - and less articles and postings based on sensational reporting of perceptions of his faith.
Maybe we are doing the Baines' data crunching and are (over time) getting a clearer picture of just who Mitt is.
My vote is for Mitt and Ann, but I will support the nominated GOP candidate if it isn't Romney. |
|
|
his baseball picks, as in the late-fading Cleveland Indians, Romney is about to go down hard and fast! |
|
This is the smallest amount of passion HH has shown for Mitt so far. It's only a matter of time for Hugh to make his move into the Rudy camp. If I were a Romney supporter, I would feel betrayed. But because I'm not, no tears from me, I have always known Mitt is a plastic fake. Flip Flop Filp Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop.
Flop. |
|
The race is between Romney and Rudy now. It's no mistake that Romney received so many endorsements last week. Dobson forced the issue of Rudy not being conservative enough. The choice between Rudy and Romney is clear, but others who can't win (Fred, Huck and McCain) are muddying the water for social conservatives. It's time to get behind one and beat Rudy.
|
|
|
reading this newest of hugh's countless plugs for romney, i'm reminded of boxers who put the gloves on one too many times. |
|
Where is evidence of this "gathering momentum" that Hugh talks about? A couple of endorsements from evangelical leaders doesn't hide that fact that no matter what Romney says or does, he is simply not gaining traction with GOP voters.
It terms of electability, there's no way that Romney rates higher than Thompson. In the general election, I would put him fourth behind Rudy, Thompson, and McCain. |
|
PC, I'm afraid you're falling victim to wishful thinking. Thankfully, Mr. Barnett and possibly even Hugh are beginning to evaluate the race as it actually is.
Romney is an impressive guy and has a good shot at winning it all. However, there are still many more candidates than just Rudy. And demanding that no one else exists does nothing but build anti-Romney contempt which he can't afford.
Mitt must be VERY worried that Huckabee did so well at the Values Voters conference and is surging in Iowa. And although the enthusiasm for Fred is slowly fading, there are still a lot of true believers who will take southern conservative votes with them.
He has many strengths, but there are some serious negative trends for him on the horizon.
Jon
http://exurbanleague.com |
|
|
watch Fred's polls after his immigration policy release today. |
|
I agree with Hugh that the writer revealed more about his own preconceptions than he discovered anything new about Romney. And yes it takes nerve to quote Hugh’s book without attribution.
Hugh, I’m not quite sure what you mean by, “on the issues central to the 2008 agenda of social conservatives --protecting traditional marriage and appointing conservative judges-- Romney is the most reliable of the GOP first-tier would-be nominees.” He may yet prove to be reliable if given the chance, but his actual record – 9 Republican judges appointed in 36 opportunities in MA – doesn’t offer us any reason to think so. Rudy, too, has gone to great pains to assure voters that as president he will do a volte-face from his NYC practice and appoint Alito-style judges instead of Democrat activists. Maybe he, or Romney, or both, can be relied on to preside differently than Mitt governed and Rudy, er, mayored. But I’m not willing to state with assurance that either has proven he’d be more reliable than the other, or than McCain or Thompson.
As Rasmussen pointed out, this field just won’t narrow. Huckabee is now closer to the top four than Gingrich (unofficially) or Paul (officially) ever was. It’s really closer to being a five-man race than a two-man one. The rise of social conservative Huckabee has mostly been at the expense of Fred. It isn’t a question of Huckabee hurting Romney; Romney is chasing the same voters Rudy and McCain are. |
|
chad, Mitt and Fred seem to do about equally poorly in matchups vs. the Dem big three. And by the time you’re losing to Edwards by 23 points, what’s another point or two anyway?
But I agree with your main point. And it makes the road clear for those who want someone less radical than Hillary Clinton to be inaugurated in 15 months. Rudy and McCain are the only two capable of winning the general election, if they get that far. Rudy, Mitt, and Fred are the only three capable of winning the nomination in the first place. It’s not hard to see the only path to Republican success. I know because I checked my intuition with one of those overlapping circle thingies (Venn diagram). |
|
I doubt that the "tired" flip flop references fall as flat as HH would hope. ESPECIALLY among swing voters and independents. Yeah, you can certainly count on the 24-percenters, as they will vote for whomever HH and the TH flaks tell them to vote for - but there are many more voters who can't be persuaded with illogic and lies. Really, how often can one suddenly become "enlightened" without being called out as either a disingenuous cad, or a waffling bozo?
The fact remains that both Mitt and Rudy have cast themselves as liberal to win votes to get themselves elected in their respective states. They've flipped on those liberal values to garner the GOP nomination, which spells - to thinking people with integrity, at least - a basic lack of honesty, integrity and character.
Now who the heck is willing to vote for disingenuousity at that level of deception? I mean....ASIDE from the 24-percenter sheeples? |
|
|
|
"The gathering momentum, the evaporation of the Mormon issue"
First get Romney above 14-15% and then tell me about that "evaporation".
This whole Romney thing is ridiculous and borders on self-absorbed irresponsibility.
At this point in our nations history, staring down the barrel of a HILLARY Presidency with the consequences being fearfully dangerous to the nation's existence, we're in the middle of an idiotic "social experment" in the GOP. We're actually giving credence to a Mormon for president. A well-respected conservative voice has sold out for the sake of this experiment, convincing himself that "he's the right guy" so he can go brag that he "called it", point to his book to prove he's pointiest head in the room, AND feel better about himself because he was a trailblazer for the Mormon President. Nevermind that 90% of the country thinks Mormons are wackos. But Hugh is convinced the "mormon issue" will just go away.
Tell me Hugh, do the giant pink elephants in the middle of the room EVER "just go away"??
I bet when it comes to the genral election, IF Romney gets the nod, most mom & pop voters will say "he's a what???"
Is this party in complete shambles or what? |
|
Hugh, good to see you,old man. I thought the cat had your tongue since you had nothing to say about the debate.
And nothing to say about Huck winning the
Family Values poll, onsite:
Mike Huckabee 488 51.26%
Mitt Romney 99 10.40%
Fred Thompson 77 8.09%
Tom Tancredo 65 6.83%%
Rudy Giuliani 60 6.30%
Duncan Hunter 54 5.67%
John McCain 30 3.15%
Explain that one away. Why do the family values voters vote 5 to 1 for Huck when Mitt is the family values man? |
|
Of Hugh's post: Hugh now raises the question of Mitt's electibility. First time I have heard that from Hugh. Is that part of the plan?
And that begs the question - if it is not LDS and the 'tired' issue, according to Hugh of flip flopping, why are there questions of Mitt's electibility. No answer from Hugh on this.
But Hugh is back with the really tired issue of a tow man race, don't tell that the the Family Values straw poll voters. |
|
|
but now Huck's rounding the bend. It probably doesn't matter what I think since I don't live in an early state, but I'm pulling for Huckabee. If the primary race is still in question by the time it gets here, I'll be voting for the strongest non-Giuliani left. |
|
|
I guess you don't mind more taxes. |
|
|
The reason Huck took the poll is because he's a Protestant minister. period. |
|
|
"The gathering momentum" for Romney? I guess that's up there with Hugh's "Klochubar collapse" in Minnesota in `06. Mitt is an unappealing, plastic dud whose only dilemma seems to be which sail boat to chose or which son to go jogging with. Mike Huckabee is a truly great man, the best candidate to Republicans have and, as a democrat (all my life, always will be) the one guy who excites me in terms of voting. Even though I disagree with him on most of the issues, you know exactly where he stands and he is brilliant. Huckabee is the best candidate by far on both sides. |
|
Mitt’s dad ran for prez 40 years ago and the Mormon thing was never an issue. Nobody regarded him as “wacko” because of his religion; they only developed misgivings about him when he unfortunately used the word brainwashed in relation to himself (not re religion, re Vietnam). But coming on the heels of the Manchurian Candidate, it was an infelicitous choice of phrase.
Mormonism has become an “issue” in this campaign for one reason only: Hugh Hewitt's book. Without HH, 90% of Americans wouldn’t know what religion Mitt was, and 90% of the rest wouldn’t care. Mitt’s Mormonism would be far, far less of an issue than Lieberman’s Jewishness was.
Mormonism has defined the Romney candidacy precisely because he and his authorized biographer have orchestrated things that way. Realizing that he was way too obscure a northeastern RINO to make a serious run at the presidency (if nothing else, trying to run against a far more famous and respected NE RINO like Rudy would have doomed him), Mitt and Hugh needed a hook, something to differentiate him from the herd. So they decided to exploit his Mormonism. Always heretofore accepted as just another of the thousands of American Protestant denominations, Mormonism was now presented as something provocative.
It was a naked attempt to capitalize on contemporary PC-ness: Point out that Mitt is different; try to find some instances of him being treated differently; try to provoke some anti-Mormon commentary to triumphantly quote; and finally point out that in order to prove we’re not all a nation of bigots, we have no choice but to elect Mitt president.
The strategy was always bound to fail. It failed sooner and more badly than expected because GOP voters have proven more open to Rudy than anyone once guessed, and because HH does possess not the conservative profile that, say, Limbaugh does. |
|
Rudy, McCain, Huckabee.
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. We must elect a President who WILL secure the border and enforce the law. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
The so-called "top tier" will not get out the voters necessary for a GOP win. Increasing turnout is the key. Give people something to vote for. Not just the lesser of two evils. Won't work this time. People are fed up with the inundation of illegal aliens. They would come out in droves for the clear choice of D=amnesty or R=enforcement. They will stay home if they both equal amnesty.
There is a huge majority of American citizens waiting for someone to pledge to uphold the laws and secure the borders, let's not ignore them any more.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
SC-
Well, the Family Values folks represent a good portion of the GOP base voters. Why then, did they vote for Huck instead of Mitt, if, as Hugh says, the LDS issue has evaporated?
If Huck is getting all this support, how can Hugh maintain its a two man race, just Mitt and Rudy? I keep being accused of being deluded and in denial, but this race has just begun, with five runners.
Hugh spend hours of air time running McCain down, but he is still in the race? Why isn't everyone listening to the widsom of Hugh, he and Mitt know more than us proles? |
|
Securing the border and enforcing the law is the only way we get to keep our rule of law, our representative Republic, and our Constitution. We must elect a President who WILL secure the border and enforce the laws. If citizenship becomes meaningless, this will no longer be the United States of America.
If the GOP thinks they can continue to import cheap labor for their donors at the expense of the citizens, they will. I will not vote for that again. If we continue to play the game of "the other guy is worse", we will lose our country. Sorry, but I will not participate in that game any longer. The GOP power brokers think we will vote for "anybody but a Democrat" so they can continue to ignore securing the borders and enforcing the laws. I'm hoping GOP primary voters give the party elites some surprises in the primaries. The levers of power and the money in the GOP are all in the hands of the cheap labor express. They do not want Duncan Hunter as the candidate. He WOULD enforce the laws and secure the border. WE have to make him the nominee by voting in the primaries. We have to talk to our friends and neighbors about him. He is not going to get media coverage. It's going to have to be a grass roots effort. I WANT to vote for a GOP candidate in Nov.'08, I WILL NOT vote for any of the amnesty supporters. If it takes crushing the GOP so a new party representing American citizens can arise, so be it.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
This is from an FRC Action press release:
Nearly six thousand votes - 5,775 - were cast in the first-ever Values Voters Straw Poll at FRC Action*s 2nd Annual Washington Briefing. FRC Action members had the choice of voting on-line, by mail, or at electronic voting stations during this weekend*s event. All presidential candidates from both parties were listed on the ballot.
Candidate Name Total Votes Percentage
1. Mitt Romney 1,595 27.62 %
2. Mike Huckabee 1,565 27.10 %
3. Ron Paul 865 14.98 %
4. Fred Thompson 564 9.77 %
5. Sam Brownback 297 5.14 %
6. Duncan Hunter 140 2.42 %
7. Tom Tancredo 133 2.30 %
8. Rudy Giuliani 107 1.85 %
9. John McCain 81 1.40 % |
|
Talisman wrote:
"I doubt that the "tired" flip flop references fall as flat as HH would hope."
Completely right. Hugh may already be tired of HEARING about “flip-flops,” but that doesn’t mean the idea has lost its legs. It continues to be effective. If Mitt somehow got the nomination, it would be effective all over again with a new set of voters in the next campaign phase. And I don’t think the left would miss their chance to brand a GOP candidate a flip-flopper, after 2004!
I do think the New Yorker article made one good point: Mitt exposes himself to these allegations with his zeal. The first president Bush was pro-abortion, then claimed to be pro-life, but his flip never became a big deal – even though he notoriously only flipped when offered the veep spot. But in typical milquetoast fashion, GHWB had never been passionately pro-abort, and he didn’t become passionately pro-life.
Conversions from mid-left to mid-right are believable (and more importantly, are often allowed to pass without much comment). Sudden conversions from one extreme to the other are often regarded as naked conversions of convenience – or worse, signs of instability. |
|
"It would do the Romney team well to think long and hard about why he can go to a group like the Value Voters Summit and tell them absolutely everything they want to hear, and avoid any serious discussion about what might make them uncomfortable about him, and still get wiped out in the on-site voting. His Mormon faith (unfairly) has something to do with it surely, but it probably has more to do with the sense that he lacks a core. And with every gimmick and scripted line and pander, he only increases that sense. Mitt Romney is a good man and a talented politician, but the very slickness of his campaign threatens to overwhelm its appeal."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmJiMDdhN2FlOGE1MW Y2NTdlZGQ5YzBhNmI2YmJmMjE= |
|
That's one of the many reasons old George lost in 1968. The other one is that he was the epitome of a Rockefellar Republican. He's the same guy that walked out of the 1964 convention refusing to endorse Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism.
I know some Romney huggers will say "that's cause Goldwater was against Civil Rights," but that's spin. Goldwater co sponsored the earlier bill that didn't pass, and spent his whole life fighting for equality. |
|
You guys who keep crowing about Romney's supposed failure to catch on in national polls need to get out and read more. He is intentionally not wasting millions of dollars trying to become as famous nationally as Thompson the actor, Rudy the 9/11 hero, or McCain the long-time national figure. Instead, he's spending millions in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, etc., so he can win there and "trampoline" into national prominence. If you're going to attack that strategy, go ahead, but don't sneer about his lack of success at something he's not even trying to do (like gain in the national polls). Get a clue, guys.
regtroll, you're not only clueless, you are a bigot who ought to be embarrassed to write such tripe, assuming you're out of high school-- and maybe even then. |
|
too "het up" over than "on-site" deal. You need to take a look at when the polls were open in relation to who was speaking.
Huckabee didn't budge in today's (or yesterday's) Rasmussen poll. |
|
Hugh,
You show your blind love in passages like this..
"He neglects to note that on the issues central to the 2008 agenda of social conservatives --protecting traditional marriage and appointing conservative judges-- Romney is the most reliable of the GOP first-tier would-be nominees. "
Uhh... Romney's record on judges wasn't anything to brag home about. The judges he sent before the Council included two gay activists and an overwhelming majority of registered democrats.
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/25/romney _jurist_picks_not_tilted_to_gop/?page=full
This article includes one of my all time favorite Mitt Quotes:
"People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away,"
Reliable? I can see the quotes now
"People on both sides of the aisle wanna interpret the law." |
|
I support Romney, but I do agree the "momentum" Hewitt refers to is not very real.
On the other hand, Giuilani's support clearly has weakened somewhat since early in the year.
If Romney wins, it will be by default.
McCain is way too far afield on his policy positions from the rank and file Republican to have a chance.
Thompson appears to be fizzling on account of lack of passion.
Rudy is unable to close the deal. Do we want someone who's "steadfast" in sticking with positions that we disagree with?
Personally, I have a hard time seeing someone being able to be politically successful winning the votes of people that don't agree with him on the issues, simply because he shows "steadfastness".
But Rudy's still is clearly the front runner.
The bottom line is, if Rudy's weakness among conservatives corrodes his campaign too much, then he may lose and Romney wins by default even though no one is crazy about him. He would then win simply because it was a choice between three unacceptables and one marginally tolerable candidate.
Romneys money is not something to take lightly, either. I don't like the idea of money deciding elections, but if in this case it causes the best candidate to win, then viva la money. |
|
Conservatives can nominate a conservative. All it takes is not acting like sheep and getting herded into nominating a northeast liberal. 49% will never vote for Hillary, only 60% voted last time. Turnout was the difference. Give Americans a chance to vote for someone who WILL secure the border and watch turnout soar. Americans want their government to fulfill its most basic responsibility.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08.com
|
|
|
gunlock: you are quoting the on line poll, I specified my numbers were the in person polling - that's the difference. |
|
Can someone tell me why the other candidates are raising money and campaigning and basically breaking their backs? Its all for nought - This is Romney's nomination no matter what. Plus - Hugh has backed Romney and he has written a book..Written a book about this, mind you.I mean Hugh..Wow!
You know what happens when Hugh is behind someone. If I were the other candidates, I would quit the race and give all the monies to Romney so the fund raising numbers are more comparable to the Dems - that way Romney doesnt have to dip into his personal savings. |
|
You know, what most of the discussion about the Republican candidates revolves around is: "Such and such can't win because of all these faults he has."
Problem is, all of these guys have MASSIVE faults.
You can make a very strong case on every single one of these guys why he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
But SOMEONE is going to win the nomination. |
|
Hey, everyone is talking about how we don't have a real choice in 2008.
Rudy versus Hillary.
What about all those voters who want a New York liberal?
Why they are left out in the cold.
Bloomberg 2008! |
|
jsmith -
We are speaking to truth to power! (g)
Yes, if Fred or McCain read this blog, they would just pack up and go home. Why bother? |
|
Hugh, for me, the campaign HAS been productive. I was originally strongly for Romney, but Rudy has shown himself -- and I've switched to Rudy. Rudy seems to connect as being more sincere/more consistent -- ala Reagan -- as well as the more likeable/interesting/entertaining to watch.
I know you are disappointed, but like with the Cleveland Indians, it turns out you ran with the wrong horse. |
|
Polls mean nothing. Words mean nothing. What counts is who can get the job done. Romney is the only candidate with a clear record in both the public and private sector to have demonstrated success. It takes more than talk (Huckabee), more than having name recognition (Giuliani), and more than having face recognition (Thompson). The presidency is no place to be a novice executive.
I support Mitt because he has integrity, demonstrable family values, and competency in business. Moreso than any other candidate. |
|
I think it would help Romney if he fired some consultants and quit telling every group exactly what they want to hear. It would instantly make him more believable if he had a Sister Solja moment or 2 under his belt. He's got to disagree with somebody in some GOP group.
I would also lose the Power Point presentation because people tend not to hire geeks as President. It's expected in a business environment but not especially helpful in politics. |
|
|
I have to wonder how many of you that hold up the national polls as evidence that there is no Romney "surge" have paid any attention to history? Where was John Kerry in the polls at this point in 2003? How about Bill Clinton in 1991? I continue to be amazed and astounded by the naivte of many on this board. |
|
richard: you are quoting the on line poll,
gunlock: NO! I am quoting the totals.
richard:I specified my numbers were the in person polling - that's the difference.
gunlock: AH! but you didn't!
You said "And nothing to say about Huck winning the Family Values poll, onsite:"
Nothing there about "in person polling".
Perhaps I am being nitpicky, but to bad. Did you know the "onsite" polls had closed prior to Romney's speech?
I guess you (like democrats during the general election) don't want to count all of the votes. In this case you would prefer to not count over 70% of the votes. |
|
Funny to watch the Giuliani and McCain supporters come each day to spam and flame these blog comments. You're preaching to each other. Hugh is right. Romney is breaking in all the areas that count - early states and conservative values leadership.
This was his plan, and he's executing it.
If you think that public debates are what decides the nominee, alone, you're mistaken. In the early states, those voters have seen Romney in many, many different formats, and that's why he's winning out there. He's very impressive.
In fact, the debate bar has been set pretty high for him. If he doesn't hit a home-run, some people (you!) think he's "failed". He's consistently strong in the debates, and he's consistently consistent in the debates. The flip-flopping charges aren't sticking where it matters (with people who are looking and listening closely to him).
McCain's resurgence hurts Rudy. Huckabee's ascendancy (if any) won't hurt Romney. It's too late, he has too little money, and too few endorsements.
At this point, given all the data and trajectories, Hugh is right, Romney will be the nominee. |
|
|
When did Hugh go completely nuts? The Bagdad Bob comparison is the best. The New Yorker piece may say many things about Romney, but "authentic GOP" is definitely not one of them. |
|
...if he wrote: An Italian in the White House? 10 things every American should know about Rudy Guiliani
|
|
by 11% in Iowa, and is up an average of 6% in the last three NH polls. If he wins those two he'll carry Michigan, and Nevada is "in the bag." I don't know about Wy, but I'd imagine that's his, also.
If he pulls off Ia, and NH I just have a hard time making a "case" for Giuliani, or Thompson getting there. |
|
You are either a liar or a misinformed fool.
Romney spoke Friday night.
The onsite voting ended sometime Saturday.
FNC just showed Romney using Barack's name instead of Osama bin Laden.
Yeah, that Romney is so smart! |
|
Say what you want about values, positions or momentum in the early states, I simply will not vote for this turkey until everyone else has been eliminated.
I wouldn't buy a used car from him, either. |
|
I am a misinformed fool. At least now you are not alone in that department.
But that doesn't change the fact the Romney WON!!!!!
BTW What is wrong with using Barack's name instead of osama's?
I mean obama osama . . . whats the difference?
That would only upset a leftist troll.
|
|
gunlock:
Go back and read my first post on the family values poll - I include the word 'onsite.'
You can't even get my party affiliation right. |
|
The Weekly Standard is not sold on Mitt's latest:
Prepare to Enter ... The Reagan Zone
October 23, 2007 • By Matthew Continetti
Now this is just silly. Mitt Romney, traveling in South Carolina today, plans to propose a "'Reagan Zone Of Economic Freedom' to fuel a new wave of global prosperity."
You can view Romney's PowerPoint presentation - I'm serious - on the "Reagan Zone" here.
Free trade contributes to global economic growth and lower prices. It promotes peace. It's worth championing on its merits, and Mitt Romney, as one of the best businessmen in America, is well equipped to make the case for trade. But the gimmicky idea of a "Reagan Zone" smacks of a consultant-driven campaign. Besides which, Romney's near-constant invocations of Reagan provide his opponents the opportunity to bring up this video, in which he is, shall we say, less charitable to the great president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hmzEtCHP0Y |
|
Go back and read my October, 23, 2007 5:20 PM real close.
I acknowledged you "onsite" word.
richard: You can't even get my party affiliation right.
gunlock: Your comment is silly since I didn't ascribe any party affiliation to you.
I did state in response to Jane that the "osama-obama" thing would only upset a leftist troll. Did you jump to the conclusion that I was talking about you? |
|
at 7:30 on Fri night. The polls closed at 6:00 Friday (they weren't just open on Saturday, evidently.) They were open Saturday when Huckabee finished speaking. It's to be assumed that most of the Romney people had voted on-line at that point, and headed home.
I'm not sure it's as big a deal as some think. |
|
I was technically accurate that the polls were closed prior to Romney's speech.
Hugs and kisses to you. |
|
You know what gives me the creeps? Larry Craig in a bathroom, Rudy as a cross dresser, Grandpa Fred the "Tennessee Stud" marrying a woman younger than his own children who cannot seem to cover herself properly, BJ Clinton and the blue dress, and Hillary kissing Arafat's wife.
Perhaps you need to look up the definition of creepy, because Romney is not it. |
|
Thank you Hugh,
You are correct. Those of us that know Mitt Romney, know he is the real deal. He is very down to earth and gracious. Mitt Romney is as conservative as you will find and as someone else that knows him well said "His IQ is so high it is off the charts". Others should get to know him before making such snap decisions. If I were to make such snap decisions I'd say Huckabee is a smooth-talker that can't be trusted, Fred is a hick, Rudy is a shyster, and McCain is senile . Those are just first impressions and I am not saying those things. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt until I get to know them better. |
|
How dare the flip flopper draft dodger envoke RR!
This guy has some nerve. Romney is a control freak lib. The reason so many say that he seems plastic, is because of his cult programing. The people who work with recovering cult victims see this robotiv behavior in all of the unfortunate people. |
|
cult /k?lt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
Sounds like Christianity is a CULT!!!!! |
|
Hugs and kisses back at ya bill.
Seriously I read the New Yorker article and it comfirmed all my suspicions about Mitt.
Panderer isn't even the right word. Its beyond that.
Romney is not going to win the nomination. No matter how hard many may wish and pray it were so.
Brit reported tonight that one of the pastors who endorsed Romney last week has asked the campaign not to use his name. I suspect he caught a lot of flack for that.
No matter how much Hugh wishes the Mormon issue dead, it isn't by a long shot.
|
|
IF it is as you say that "anyway, romney is a nonstarter" and "Romney is not going to win the nomination. No matter how hard many may wish and pray it were so."
THEN why do y'all get your panties is a bunch when someone speaks positively about him?
Me thinks you doth protest too much.
Jane: I suspect he caught a lot of flack for that.
GB: Do you mean to say that those he associates with are a bunch of religious bigots? |
|
|
The "Mormon issue" is not dead for about 6 people. Apparently it IS dead for voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan. Even SC is coming around. Romney is heading right toward the nomination. |
|
Romney knows what he is talking about. We all know the history of how African-Americans are viewed. Don't be fooled by the flip flopper draft dodger. I'm surprised he didn't mention that Senator Obama is cursed.
“I think that is a position which is not consistent with the fact,” Mr. Romney said. “Actually, just look at what Osam — uh — Barack Obama, said just yesterday. Barack Obama calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. That is the central place, he said. Come join us under one banner.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/romney-makes- obama-osama-gaffe/
|
|
John McCain? Arlen Spector? Susan Collins? or any of the other Pro-Abortion and/or Pro-Amnesty crowd?
How can we tell? He has publically taken both sides of those two critical topics...
We need a conservative choice for President. We don't need another draft-dodger. We don't need a man who felt he and his family were above serving in the military to serve as Commander-in-Chief. |
|
I'm no Romney fan, either, but lay of the Mormon thing. His religion is quirky, but so is everybody's religion when viewed from the outside.
I couldn't give a lick about Romney's religion, as long as it doesn't condone suicide bombers, child abuse, or illegal drug use. And I believe that LDS gives people a strong moral foundation. But.....
I can't "buy" Romney. I'm not hating on him, but he comes across as plastic and inauthentic. The weird thing is that at the beginning of the primary race, I liked him more. The first few debates, he seemed fresh and full of energy. Now he just seems like a canned ham.
I'm sure he is competent, and would do fine as a president. I don't care about what y'all think, though, he HAS changed his positions. You can't go from pro-choice to pro-life overnight without facing scepticism, especially when it just happens to coincide with deciding to run for President. Ditto gun control, gay rights, and immigration.... I don't think he is closing the deal. I think people in Iowa and NH are likely already sick of him. We will see... |
|
Considering that you ask for respect for Romney's religious freedom, you'd be better of giving some to others.
I'm no Obama supporter. While the man gives a great speech, I don't think he's got the experience to be President, and besides, Hillary is going to crush him. But playing games equating him with the #1 world terrorist is not just unfair and irresponsible; it will also come back to haunt Mitt. No Republican is going to win the general without getting independents to vote for him, and this is a turn off. I, like Jane, wonder if it was truly a "mistake," either way, Mitt should apologize (I don't believe he has.)
I also thought that both Rudy and Mitt going after Hillary in the debate was crass. It was not substantiative. Hillary is wrong about many, many things, but she is a US Senator. I thought McCain was classy, saying he respected her, but would debate her and beat her on the issues. Classy, and also smart. |
|
Quoting from nytimes(New York Times).com
Are you sure you aren't a anti-religion leftist troll? |
|
was actually pretty good. It was also fairer than I would expect from the New Yorker. It is a publication that definitely leans to the left, but Mitt Romney and the Romney campaign would do well to take it as constructive criticism.
Mitt needs to get focused on why he is the better candidate, what skills he is bringing to the table and why the GOP should support him as their standard bearer. Rather than trying to pander to every conservative focus group and being something he is not, Mitt should be himself. |
|
Ya'll must be so perfect. I mean never making a slip of the tongue when talking about osama . . . I mean obama.
Ya'll are humorless. Are you sure ya'll ain't liberals? |
|
So which was it gunlock? did you just make a "Mistake" or deliberately lie about richard_223's "lie". Everyone on here can go back and read this board. You sir owe everyone an apology. Or is this what we can expect from you Romneyites?
And spin it anyway you want everyone has reported that Huckabee won on site and that only when online came into play did Romney win. Wonder which call center in India Romney's people hired to flood the poll, I mean the guy is well know for buying off these straw polls isn't he.
dirL
the train wreck continues !!!!
|
|
|
The other night at the debate, there were only a few candidates that went into any details when asked a question. The rest pandered to the GOP audience much like anyone going to a rock concert. Guiliani only goes into specifics after the debates, when talking to Hannity, Thompson never goes into details, McCain loves one liners, Romney,Huckabee,Hunter,Paul,and Tancredo actually describe what they would do. Guiliani, Thompson, and McCain go for applause, the biggest applause wins? How retarded? Hell, George Bush knows how to get an applause. So does Ozzy Osbourne. The candidates actually have to DO something if elected. Getting the biggest applause dosent make you a good president, it make you a good entertainer. I dont want an entertainer, I want an accomplisher. |
|
Romney is a true conservative. Those who say he's liberal are liars, just plain ignorant, or persons who will say anything to get their person the nomination in hopes of the Presidency.
Who is better at solving massive giant enterprise problems? Who has proven their ability to lower taxes consistently? Who can beat the Democrats at their game of Universal Health Care but with this difference that it does not raise taxes and uses private enterprise? Who will appoint conservative judges that oppose Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, etc.? Who can articulate and beat Hillary Clinton in national debates, hands down? Who has the intelligence to beef up our military and make it strong enough to keep the peace without inviting war? Who will give us the strong economy we need to keep our jobs at home and provide quality employment for our children coming up?
Above all, who can do all of these things and project a role model image for our youth to look to? There's only one and that's Mitt Romney.
Hugh, you're right on with your support. |
|
dirLie: Everyone on here can go back and read this board.
GB: GOOD!!! I am GLAD!!!! If fact I recommend that they DO exactly that!!! And READ my posts VERY CAREFULLY!!!!!!! Which is something you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT DO.
dirLie: You sir owe everyone an apology.
GB: Do as I suggested above and then show me EXACTLY what I should be apologizing for.
dirLie: Or is this what we can expect from you Romneyites?
GB: I could ask the same thing about you ANTI-Romneyites!!
And Just for clarification Romney isn't my first choice. However I certainly would be glad to vote for him over most of the other candidates. I am trying to live by Reagan's 11th commandment. If I have failed to do so, I would like to see it. |
|
Who will be the next president?
Not the flip flopper draft dodger, Romney. Funny to see how the the Romney crowd cuts and runs when the heat gets turned up a few notches. If the flip flopper wins the nomination which is extremely doubtful, the democrats will have no mercy. Every bit of dirt will be brought into the light of day. The republican party already has enough baggage with W, we don't need all the Joe Smith freight train full of baggage as well.
|
|
"Funny to see how the the Romney crowd cuts and runs when the heat gets turned up a few notches."
Please. Do tell. Wow, so you drank some beer with some mormons, thats a shocker. So now your an expert on the religion. |
|
|
You drank some beer with some mormons which makes you an expert on the religion. The dolphins are 7-0. |
|
|
When Mr. Romney wins the nomination, he will need all of your loyalty and support. If Hillary Clinton is allowed to win this Presidency she will surely provide all the wrong headedness to bring our country down and even further down. Mitt Romney is the example of integrity and success we need for our young people today. The out of wedlock births, the decline of young men seeking a college education, the steady movement and endorsement toward acceptance of the gay lifestyle and every other morally decaying action make it absolutely imperative that we elect a President who can mirror what it means to be a good citizen, a good father, and a loyal spouse. Unlike the wasteland offerings on our TV screen in which grown men are now shown to be silly, incompetent, and irrelevant, he will portray a man with courage and intelligence, with deep relevance. Mitt and Ann Romney all the way! |
|
I, also, think Catholicism, Judaeism, Baptism, Pentacostalism, Jihadism, and Buddhism are silly. I'm still thinking about Rostafarianism.
I think anyone who spends more than 30 seconds talking about any of the above is silly.
I'm just looking for the best PERSON to be President. My family has a vested interest in the outcome.
I'm for Mitt. |
|
Ray
Sadly your anti-Mormon obsessions cloud your judgement and cause you to make outrageous and largely incorrect statements. Mitt doesn't claim to be perfect. No good LDS member I know makes the same claim. I grew up with Catholics, Jews, Methodists and Evangelicals who didn't live their religion. Did it make me think any less of their church or beliefs? Not to me. I also grew up with a number of so-called jack Mormons. They seemed little different from the lapsed Catholics except in your paranoid world.
Just because you have served a mission doesn't guarantee faithfulness although almost all returned missionaries I have been associated with (I have lived in 4 countries) are strong practising LDS. A mission is a microcosm of the church with the staunch and strong and the weak and slack and everything in between. The rules are strict - I laughed out loud at your portrayal of Romney's 2.5 years in France as some kind of wine drinking holiday. Far from it I can assure you but this is not to try and equate a mission to military service because the forms of service are very different.
You, richard 223 and jack shiite all have one thing in common - you never waste an opportunity to take a swipe at Mitt's religion all the while feigning concern for the damned souls of Mormonism and other fob offs such as "well I wouldn't vote for him even if he wasn't a Mormon" but in the same breath elevating the Mormon issue as an unclimable mountain. Your posts are laced with what you consider to be juicy anti-Mormon swipes all designed to prove what a nutty bunch we are in the church and how no thinking conservative could vote for a man who believes such tripe.
|
|
|
Meanwhile Romney holds his lead in IA despite the increasing efforts of Thompson, Guiliani and McCain. He is now slowly inching his lead back up in NH again and is gaining in MI, NV, CA and SC. Then he garners a swag of endorsements from the very people who know all the anti-Mormon arguments backwards and then he wins the straw poll. Now all the rightleaning blog readers will parse the win and proclaim Huckabee the winner - meanwhile the places where most Americans get their news simply see the headlines "Romney wins Values Voters Summit Poll" and think hmm I must pay more attention to Romney and when they do, some of them like him and decide to vote for him. I guess its not working out how some of you posting here would like but hey that's the beauty of democracy. |
|
|
Jack shiite - There are plenty of non-LDS posting at Townhall - some like Mitt some don't. Mostly the avowed anti-Mormons like you make such a big issue of the church. Many non LDS yawn with disinterest at your 'shock horror' revelations and make it clear that Romney isn't asking to be their spiritual advisor or pastor. You will note many LDS posters come out and discuss the church when you and Ray and others attack. We like the fact that Mitt is LDS - frankly if he had the exact same resume and was Assemblies of God I'd still vote for him and post in support of him. His Mormonism is not the main reason why I support him even though I'm proud he is of my faith. I don't see him being President as being a threat to other religions - after all there was no larger than normal upsurge in baptisms in MA when he was Governor. |
|
JackShiite
"They don't tell anyone they are Mormon until, of course, it becomes necessary to argue a point."
It becomes necessary when good ol boy Christians like Ray start up with the "mormons are crazy" talk. Tell me honestly, have you endulged in that talk too Jack?
JackShiite
"What I see are a bunch of rabid mormons on every blog across the internet battling it out for Romney."
What I see is a bunch of rabid good ol boy christians on every blog accross the internet that spread lies about mormons. Mitt Romney running just brings it out in the open. If someone thinks Mitt sucks, that's fine. I dont fight anybody's political battles. When you talk smack about something dear to my heart, like my religion to which your views are biased many generations over, and you insist you know all about it...another story.
|
|
"The real miracle in Mormonism, then -- the wonderful nature of its success -- is to be sought, not in the fact that it has been able to attract believers in a new prophet, and to find them at this date and in this country, but in its success in establishing and in keeping together in a republic like ours a membership who acknowledge its supreme authority in politics as well as religion, and who form a distinct organization which does not conceal its purpose to rule over the whole nation."
"The plan of Smith, the prophet, is to take the state; and he professes to his people to intend taking the whole United States and ultimately
the whole world. The prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that Smith's prophecies are superior to the law of the land. I have heard the prophet say that he would yet tread down his enemies and walk over their dead bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mohammed to this generation"
"the sworn testimony of T. B. Marsh, a president of the Twelve Apostles, in October, 1838"
From, Mormonism, The Islam of America 1912
BRUCE KINNEY, D. D.
Formerly Superintendent of Baptist Missions in Utah
|
|
Jack shiite
I'm not on Townhall 24/7 but each time I see you, Ray and a few others posting about politics it is almost always to take a swipe at Romney which is fine - its Primary season and the Fred heads attack the Guiliani people and so on and so forth. But your crowd always take the next step and fall back to cheap anti-Mormon shots. I never see any other supporters of any of the other GOP candidates attack any of their rivals for the nomination about their religious views EXCEPT Romney. Hmm odd that considering there's no religious test according to Article 6 of the Constitution.
I understand that Romney belongs to a faith that is unknown to more Americans than say Catholicism and Judaism and so curiosity is normal and ignorance of anything leads to suspicion. As I've stated many times before, all religions have odd practices and beliefs but have you or any in the media ever asked Rudi if he prays to Mary or asked Huckabee if he speaks in tongues. But somehow Romney's religion is fair game. Attack Romney on his record as Governor (which in fairness you and Ray do as well), attack him all you like about flip flops but be consistent and treat Romney's religion like Huckabee's or Guiliani's.
You can ascribe all kinds of sinister motives to LDS posters who shill for their boy - I repeat, if Romney were an Presbyterian and lived the life he has to date I'd still support him, not because he was Presbyterian but because he would bring to the Presidency all his skills and life experience. |
|
At least you said 'panties' in a bunch and not magic garments!
As far as the Mormon issue, I didn't know anything about that religion until I heard of Mitt. So I did some research.
Lets just say if Romney wins the nomination, say hello to President Hillary.
Mormons have the right to worship however they please. And I have the right to have any opinion of that religion.
It is whacked. Most people don't have a clue, and once they do, they will turn against Romney. Sorry those are the facts people.
Go ahead and call me a bigot. I really don't care. |
|
"the sworn testimony of T. B. Marsh, a president of the Twelve Apostles, in October, 1838"
You dont point out (niether does your source) that Thomas B. March was was talking smack(making false accusations), because his feelings were hurt over spilled milk. |
|
Read it. Learn. It is truth. It is a fair and balance representation of the guy, in all his humanity. Read it.
There is one truth. It is not a matter of Lizza's POV vs. Hugh's POV, or what the Mormons say about him or his donors or whomever. Mitt Romney, like all of us, has a nature. Lizza has captured Romney's soul far more equitably and rationally than Hugh ever has. You Republicans are so busy deifying your leaders and demonizing your enemies that I suspect you have lost your capacity to discern human truth. But read the article and get a far better understanding of the guy than you ever will on these pages.. |
|
|
Your comments are spot on. The mormons have been very good about diguising their religion, and you are right, that few in America know anything anything about it, but if Mitt wins the nomination, mormonism will be finally exposed for what it is. We have every right to examine this invented religion based on absolute secrecy. Article VI DOES NOT APPLY TO ME, OR ANY VOTER. Mormonism to me, is Islam, American style. |
|
Jack - what question have we not answered? As I recall none of you would answer the question as to whether Abraham and Jacob's polygamy was approved of God? Is it whether Romney would legalise polygamy - if that is the question you think I'm avoiding it's a ludicrous question. Of course he won't. Why would he - the church doesn't practice polygamy.
"His fake support is HEAVILY, HEAVILY out-balanced by mormons" Wow - you are subscribing to us way more power than we have. So please explain this - in IA there are only 22,000 LDS or 0.7% of the population and yet the RCP average lead for Mitt is +11.3. In NH there are 8,200 members or 0.6% of the population and he leads by +4.2. He is +5.2 in MI and only 42,000 LDS there and an even smaller 0.4%. It makes a mockery of your proposition.
"but you will have to deal with me and several dozen others following you around and exposing you." Hmm I guess you, Ray and Jane haven't been doing a very good job have you at least not in IA, NH, MI, NV, SC or FL. I will make a prediction. Romney will win this nomination and it wont be Mormons that will enable it because there just aren't enough of us and, unlike Jane, most Americans believe in Article VI. But if Mitt loses, I'll happily support any of the top tier in the race.
|
|
Mitt's religion should be off topic. You disagree with it, fair enough. So don't vote for him. But most people's faiths can be attacked. We should judge faiths by how their followers act, and Mormons are for the most part pretty nice folks. Not perfect, but defintely not worth constant attack.
Here's a question for Virginia Patriot and Pasadena Phil. Is Fred too late for your party? http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx |
|
Still top notch...
The GOP looks solid with he and Rudy.
On to 2008 ! |
|
First, I am a LDS and I do support Mitt and Fred (ie anyone but Rudy/McCain), this seems to matter to you (whether your Mormon or not).
"What I see are a bunch of rabid Mormons (sic)... battling it out for Romney."
This observation/argument has appeared several time on various blogs most notably around the time of the BYU business school dust-up. While a few motivated net-savvy people can really use the internet to magnify their cause (see Ron Paul campaign), this is hardly sinister as you directly said.
To you, a Rombot, is a Mormon who just hasn't indicated their religion yet. Never mind the fact that culturally and politically Mormons are almost as diverse as most of America. There are plenty of high profile Mormons publicly endorsing other candidates (heard of Harry Reid?). Never mind all the non-Mormon endorsements Romney does have and the several blogs dedicated to him by non-Mormon Christan groups (ie non-Mormons battling it out). Let's not let real facts get in the way of your finger in the air.
The "Mormon Issue" is obviously a major stumbling block for many socons for reasons that have been talked about to death. For socon, who are Mormon, this isn't an issue so they would be more likely to support him.
"Just what exactly are you trying to accomplish?"
Are you talking about individual Mormons who happen support Romney? I'd say they are trying to accomplish the same thing as Fredheads, McCainites, Rudogs, and Hucksters. Of course you have something different in mind, so why don't you stop with the rhetorical questions and just say it.
|
|
Jane,
I don't know what kind of "research" you did, but there is plenty of opposition material out there. If you're honestly interested then you should try some Mormon apologist material just to counter balance a particular argument. You still might find it "whacked" but no more "whacked" than other religions.
Ray,
Your comments about "disguising" our religion borders on comical. We have 50k+ missionaries worldwide who are looking for people to talk to about our religion. Have you bothered asking a Mormon you know (and everyone knows at least one) about their religion? Most people are more than willing to open up and have a discussion about faith as long as they know you have honest intentions. I'm sure to you, we will always be hiding something because we don't admit to whatever "whacked"-out conspiracy crap that your convinced of.
In case you're curious, there are well intentioned honest debates that go on all over the place. I realize that there are many, many people out there that have taken a hard look at Mormonism and decide to pass. I personally have found it very appealing and fulfilling and would simply agree to disagree, that OK. Please, for the sake of discussion, don't bother talking (typing) if you haven't bothered doing any critical research pass finding ammo for your slanted perspective.
|
|
Jane,
I don't know what kind of "research" you did, but there is plenty of opposition material out there. If you're honestly interested then you should try some Mormon apologist material just to counter balance a particular argument. You still might find it "whacked" but no more "whacked" than other religions.
Ray,
Your comments about "disguising" our religion borders on comical. We have 50k+ missionaries worldwide who are looking for people to talk to about our religion. Have you bothered asking a Mormon you know (and everyone knows at least one) about their religion? Most people are more than willing to open up and have a discussion about faith as long as they know you have honest intentions. I'm sure to you, we will always be hiding something because we don't admit to whatever "whacked"-out conspiracy crap that your convinced of.
In case you're curious, there are well intentioned honest debates that go on all over the place. I realize that there are many, many people out there that have taken a hard look at Mormonism and decide to pass. I personally have found it very appealing and fulfilling and would simply agree to disagree, that OK. Please, for the sake of discussion, don't bother talking (typing) if you haven't bothered doing any critical research pass finding ammo for your slanted perspective.
|
|
Tuesday , October 23, 2007
Fox News
'The former president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention has retracted his endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The Romney campaign has agreed to withdraw all references to Pastor Don Wilton's endorsement of Romney, the Baptist Press reported on Tuesday.
Click here to read the Baptist Press article.
Wilton said the endorsement — first announced by the Romney campaign last Friday — was a "mistake."
"While I did give my consent to the local campaign to use my affirmation of the governor's stance on family values in my capacity as an individual citizen, I made the mistake of not realizing the extent to which it would be used on a national basis," Wilton told the news agency. "It was my personal error to agree to support Romney's campaign. Until this incident I had never endorsed any person running for any elected office, Democrat or Republican."'
Hmm, looks like he saw the light. Maybe he watched those youtube videos of Mitt the liberal. Or maybe he's a hard shell Baptist!
|
|
Romney is racking up endorsements quite handily now. Last week was a turning point with Dobson forcing the debate on Rudy. You will see more and more social conservative leaders endorsing Romney. Why do you suppose Fred, Huck or McCain are not getting in on some of this? Perhaps because almost everyone has gotten over the Mormon problem and realize Romney has the best chance to beat Rudy and Hillary.
|
|
Looks like one flip flopper filpping on another to me.
And, the social conservatives at the on site poll with family values voted 5 to 1 for Huck over Mitt. |
|
This ties in with Patrick's observation. From Rich Lowry at National Review:
Leaving No Gimmick Behind [Rich Lowry]
I trust that Romney's proposal on trade is substantive and sound, but as Matt Continetti points out, calling for a "Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom" makes it seem gimmicky. One wonders if Romney is ever presented a silly idea by his consultants that makes him say, "No, sorry, I can't do or say that—it's not dignified and that's not who I am"? Or when they tell him to pledge, say, "to get God back on the front of the coin!" does he just go out and do it, no questions asked? It would do the Romney team well to think long and hard about why he can go to a group like the Value Voters Summit and tell them absolutely everything they want to hear, and avoid any serious discussion about what might make them uncomfortable about him, and still get wiped out in the on-site voting. His Mormon faith (unfairly) has something to do with it surely, but it probably has more to do with the sense that he lacks a core. And with every gimmick and scripted line and pander, he only increases that sense. Mitt Romney is a good man and a talented politician, but the very slickness of his campaign threatens to overwhelm its appeal.
|
|
Ah more cooking of the books!!!!
You said "And, the social conservatives at the on site poll with family values voted 5 to 1 for Huck over Mitt."
Well like a democrat you don't want to count all of the votes. Not even the majority of those who voted for your guy. Anything to put a better spin on it. Right! (another liberal ploy)
I wonder how the other 69% of Hucks supporters feel about you wanting to take away their voice!
I wonder how the other 85% of the FRC voters feel about you wanting to take away their voice!
Oh the extent the anti-Romneyites will go to!! It is amazing. |
|
I still can't figure out how Hugh thought the New Yorker piece would help Romney. It paints him as a mega phoney.
The Mormon research I have done, I have read stuff on the LDS website, read Under the Banner of Heaven, read the Mormon Curtain and No Man knows My History. Also I have read stuff on Jeff Lindsey's blog.
I have come to the conclusion that although they call themselves the COJCOLDS, it is much more about Joseph Smith and the Old Testement. There are many mormons who to this day will defend Joseph Smith seducing 14 year olds and marrying other men's wives.
It is appalling that that conman should get any respect in today's world.
BYU even has a Joseph Smith nativity scene. He was born on dec. 24. It is contemptable.
ANd thats the way I see it. |
|
|
Who is Don Wilton supporting now? |
|
Wilton doesn’t seem to approve of Romney’s family values stance any less than he did before. He’s just not specifically endorsing Romney, as a candidate, over the other candidates. IOW, just because Romney got the Wilton personal stamp of approval doesn’t mean other candidates aren’t eligible to receive it as well. And Wilton is drawing a distinction between himself as an individual and himself as a religious leader. Sounds like Wilton doesn’t want his religious mission compromised by partisan politics, which is fair enough.
The NYT completely misses the point when it wonders, “It is unclear what prompted the change of heart from Mr. Wilton.” There was no change. Romney just got a little overaggressive in claiming Wilton as an endorser rather than a well-wisher. |
|
|
It reminds me of the Simpson's Mayor Quimby dubbing his highway project the “Matlock Expressway” in order to pander to Andy Griffith-loving senior citizens. |
|
How predictable - a grab bag of anti-Mormon books. You know if I want to learn about Catholicism I'll read their material thanks and not the nasty hit pieces written about CAtholics by some evangelicals.
Here's a challenge for you Jane - all in the name of balance. Read "Book of Mormon Authorship - Evidence for Ancient Origins" by Noel Reynolds along with "Re-exploring the Book of Mormon" edited by John Welch. Both books are packed with original scholarly research by LDS academics who have real degrees usually from Ivy League schools. The avalanche of material that points to the ancient authenticity of the BOM has been unanswered by anti-Mormon critics. Meanwhile the books you cite have been rebutted page by page at http://www.fairlds.org
Finally read "The Gainsayers" by Darrick Evinson written by an LDS member who left the church and became an anti-Mormon joining ex-Mormons for Jesus. Over time he came to realise what we all know in the church and that is the dishonest approach anti-Mormons take. His research unearther that 90% of EMFJ for never LDS and of those that were, some had 'joined' the church deliberately to then leave the church just to claim they were ex-Mormon. Needless to say, Darrick is now back in the LDS church. |
|
Richard - Romney won. Get over it and all the other non-issues you bring up ad nauseum.
How about some fresh material?
|
|
|
Or Mormon derangement syndrome? I'm not sure but Richard, Jane, Jack and Ray are all afflicted. Someone please help - they are killing rational discussion on TH. |
|
You said "Romney just got a little overaggressive in claiming Wilton as an endorser rather than a well-wisher."
Which may be partially true, but Wilton took responsibility for the misunderstanding. Sounds like Wilton is a real stand up guy. |
|
This guy needs to be interviewed on one of the Big three! Maybe Romney is trying to pay these guys for their endorsements in some sort of slick disguised way? I know Mitt is perfect, and he has never, ever done anything wrong, but a little investigative journalism is needed on this story.
Reminds me of reading the obituaries and then going over to the grieving home with a vision. LOL.
Flip Flop, Flip Flop,
Flop.
|
|
JackShiite "I am not Anti-Mormon
I just like to pi55 you off,"
Big G "That's conveniant. My drill sgt had a name for guys like you that were good for nothing but going around trying to pi55 people off. "Turd-burglers".
JackShiite writes: "Big G
Exposed. Hugh might like keeping you around, but you will have to deal with me and several dozen others following you around and exposing you.
F*ck you, too."
I come to Hughs post because I know this is where the turd-burglers congregate. I hope your trashy comments get you kicked off of townhall.
|
|
to see a member of the MSM, Hugh, dissing the MSM. Hilarious.
The GOP has something sick within. The heart of the GOP is filthy and reeking of corruption and sexual deviancy.
Rudy stands by a pedophile priest who was relieved of his priestly duties by the Church.
Romney is a robotic flip flopper of the most offensive type.
The GOP is a joke, sick within, with many members sexual deviants.
True conservatives, do something about it. |
|
|
when liberals accuse republicans of what they themselves are guilty of - I think it's called projection. What are you hiding? |
|
JackShiite writes: "you will have to deal with me and several dozen others following you around and exposing you.
F*ck you, too."
You are sick and twisted and deserve to be tossed from TownHall. |
|
If Romney really wanted to help his campaign he should address the misconception that Mormons practice polygamy. This is the biggest anchor around Romney's neck, but he refuses to address this one major misconception.
That misconception is still widely held by social conservatives and hurts him badly.
Opposition to Romney melts when voters realize that "FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS" not real Mormons are the ones who practice polygamy.
He should have addressed it last Spring and then kept repeating himself or he should have had a 527 address it.
If he can get voters to understand that REAL MORMONS DO NOT PRACTICE POLYGAMY his poll numbers would jump a lot.
You are automatically and immediately excommunicated by the Mormon Church for advocating or practicing polygamy. Romney needs to make that clear.
Many of the FLDS poligs have never been Real Mormons. Many of them are converts from other faiths or were born directly into the FLDS.
The FLDS are like Branch Davidians. Claiming that FLDS are Mormons is like claiming that Branch Davidians are Fundamentalist Protestants.
|
|
"If he can get voters to understand that REAL MORMONS DO NOT PRACTICE POLYGAMY his poll numbers would jump a lot."
I would gather that Joeseph Smith and Brigham Young are not real mormans? Am I reading this correctly? It seems that there are around 40,000 people who call themselves mormon, that strongly disagree with you.
I had polygamy practicing mormons framing a main stream mormon ward building in 2001. They worked for a company owned by a mormon. This was in West Jordan, Utah. The framing crew had framed over 100 wards and stake centers in Utah and Arizona. They lived in West Jordan. One guy had 6 wives, and he was only 32 or so years old. He said he was born into a regular mormon family, and converted to, what he called "The true mormon church." He was very proud of the church and its history. He said he was living the D&C's. I brought it up in passing with a mormon official whom I knew very well, from SLC, and he said it was not really a big deal, and they were good people, bu misguided. I never brought it up with him again. I will admit that they were hard working honest men. Their wives came over to the job site on regular basis. They were friends with this particular ward's bishop. He was related to one of the framers, who may have been a convert to polygamy as well.
|
|
|
Absolutely not. Fred's been starting to find his footing lately and what he's saying is worth listening to. |
|
JackShiite writes: Wednesday, October, 24, 2007 12:38
"Big G
Exposed. Hugh might like keeping you around, but you will have to deal with me and several dozen others following you around and exposing you.
F*ck you, too."
|
|
JackShiite "I am not Anti-Mormon
I just like to pi55 you off,"
Big G "That's conveniant. My drill sgt had a name for guys like you that were good for nothing but going around trying to pi55 people off. "Turd-burglers".
JackShiite writes: "Big G
Exposed. Hugh might like keeping you around, but you will have to deal with me and several dozen others following you around and exposing you.
F*ck you, too."
|
|
|
Projection, schmojection. Everyone's a frigging shrink these days. Try spending a little less time watching Oprah and a little more time thinking through your arguments. |
|
|
Can I use the "F" word too??! |
|
|
I never watch Oprah, and we all know which party has more "sexual deviants". |
|
JackShiite
"I am not Anti-Mormon
I just like to pi55 you off,"
Big G writes:
"That's conveniant. My drill sgt had a name for guys like you that were good for nothing but going around trying to pi55 people off. "Turd-burglers".
JackShiite writes:
"Big G
Exposed. Hugh might like keeping you around, but you will have to deal with me and several dozen others following you around and exposing you.
F*ck you, too."
JackShiite writes:
"If my comment to you was so offensive, why do you keep reposting it?"
To expose you for the hateful coward that you are.
|
|
|
You got that right. Stay out of the men's room, everyone. There may be some Republicans around.. |
|
|
|