Thursday, June 12, 2008
|
|
Mormon's for McCain?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
2:33 PM
|
Matthew Yglesias argues that selecting Mitt Romney as a running mate might help John McCain pick up several states:
"... I say it makes Nevada and Colorado tougher for the Democrats to pick up, and Michigan also, though not so much for the LDS factor."
I think that's right. There's also the potential that Mormon mobilization could put Oregon back in play."
But he also adds ...
"... On the other hand, given the fact that evangelicals are already less-than-ecstatic about McCain, adding Romney make that problem even worse and hurt McCain in Ohio, Virginia, and elsewhere that the GOP counts on mobilizing these voters. More generally, Romney seems to be a figure who most Americans find despicable, which makes him a problematic VP choice."
It would be ironic if an army of Mormon supporters in key states were the reason John McCain became president ...
|
|
WITH EVERY CANDIDATE THERE IS GOOD AND BAD.
MITT HAS WHAT MCCAIN NEEDS, EXECUTIVE SKILLS, ECONOMICAL EXPERIENCE/SUCCESS, SOLID PAST HISTORY AND MARRIAGE, PERSONABLE, GOOD SPEAKER, SMART AND SHARP, CLEAN AND HUMBLE, YOUNG AND CLASSY, HES NOT PRACTICING A MORMAN RELIGION LIFESTYLE SO GET OVER IT! THE BEGUILED OBAMA WORSHIPERS AREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT HIS 20 YEARS OF ENDOCTRINATION BY A RADICAL, ANGRY UNPATRIO-TIC MENTOR PREACHER! MICHELLE WAS ADVERSELY INFLUENCED, AS EVIDENCED BY HER WORDS AND HER HUSBAND IS SEEKING THE "PRESIDENCY", NOT JUST A VICE PRESIDENT POSITION, THERES NO COMPARISON!
IF MCCAIN PICKS ROMNEY HE WINS! ONCE A DEMOCRAT BUT THE ROOKIE OBAMA CHANGED THAT! GO MCCAIN/MITT |
|
QM7: At the risk Of challenging Joeb's superior intellect, Obama has opened an office in Utah, with paid staff. He said he intends on fighting for Utah. It'a about time someone did. He (the empty 0) might have figured out that we in Utah are getting tired of being taken forgranted. Just this weekend I was at a home of an elderly person I am aquainted with, and they had Obama signs on front lawn and stickers on their cars. I asked what they were thinking. They said that they are tired of not being taken seriously with their votes. They know that the empty O will be awful for the country, but they think it's time the country wakes up and knows how important utah can be in a tight race.
Sorry Joeb. I did not mean to insult you, but that's what some are thinking here in 'repressed' Utah.
me: Frankly, who cares? Let's say you are right, Mormons are going to throw all their moral values (yeah, right, like Mormons have moral values. Not that I've ever seen) and vote for a guy who they know is bad for the country just to "show" the GOP that they are tired of being taken for granted.
Again, so what. It's only 5 Electoral votes.
Now, me, I'm going to vote for the guy I think is best for the country. Right now, that's McCain, despite all the things he's done to antagonize me over the last 8 years. Probably a waste, since IL will definitely be a blue state this time.
However, I don't think he can win, unless the country is a lot more racist than I want to think it is. The GOP hasn't done much to really show it deserves to be put back in office.
|
|
JOhn: Secondly, you clearly are now aware that the original Christian Church (the Catholic Church) considers you and all other Protestant churches heretical. Did you know that? Did you know that your version of Christianity is just one of many, and that the original version thinks your church is way off its rocker.
Me: Actually, I'm Catholic, not Protestant, and I think Catholicism is full of crap, too.
John: Sorry buddy, but if you're going to attack Mormonism so salaciously, you'd better be prepared for the arguments that can be made against your brand of Protestant Christianity.
Me: Feel free, you probably won't get a lot of disagreement from me on the subject. My point is on INTENT. The writers of the Bible were not intending to deceive for their own aggrandizement. They were trying to put down stories they knew as best they could. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, was attempting to create a fake religion to get money, power and women. You can't mix a clean cake in a dirty bowl.
For instance, Martin Luther didn't really claim an angel visited him or God told him to start his own Church. He started out rightfully complaining that the Catholic Church had lost its way, becoming what it was once against. In the process, he triggered the Catholic Counter-reformation, which got the church to clean up its act. |
|
John: I've got a degree from Harvard Divinity School (sorry I had to pull that out) and I can tell you that if you think Mormonism is a fairy tale, then you'd better take a hard look at Christianity. You obviously haven't studied biblical or Christian historyor you wouldn't be making claims that your biblically-based religion is any more authoritative than Mormonism.
Me: Actually, I have stated I consider much of what mainstream Christians to believe in to be a fairy tale. See my earlier posts, I'm getting tired of repeating myself to Mormons or Morons.
John: Rather than taking you through biblical and Christian history (which you ought to know but clearly don't), let me just say that both the New Testament and the Old Testament have been thoroughly proven to be the product of something other than "infallible" others. Both the Old and New Testaments were written by normal (not necessarily prophetic) authors, most of whom wrote far after the events in question and wrote for cultural as well as political purposes.
Me: I've said in earlier posts. That isn't my point. My point is that someone didn't claim to find these one day guided their by God. We know these were handed down by many generations, with all sorts of mistranslation in the process.
JOhn: So if Mormonism is based on a lie, what is Christianity based on, which claims to be based on some infallible god-breathed scripture, which supposedly spawned a "perfect" religion full of "perfect" people.
Me: The difference is that the Bible was oral traditions finally being put to paper. There are almost definitely mistakes, but not fraud. The BOM is quite different. Joseph Smith made it up, and the things he made up are disproved by archeology, etc.
|
|
"Sorry Cavalier, I meant to write fair tax, not flat tax. Although "fare" tax might be a more appropriate name. At least it would remind people that every time they buy something they are paying a fare to the Fed."
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!! Everytime you buy something, you are paying a fare to the Federal Government--because the corporation is passing its tax burden on to you through higher prices. At least the Fair Tax brings it out into the open...that, and it eliminates Income, Estate, Capital Gains, Corporate, and Social Security/Medicare (FICA) Taxes. When you get your paycheck, you will not see a Gross amount and then a Net amount. It will be all net.
And yes, everytime you buy something, you will see what the tax is on the receipt. It is one of the ways that the Fair Tax will keep Congress from raising it. |
|
JoeB said:
"I just don't like liars, I don't like religions based on a lie, and I don't like the idea of my party committing seppeku by nominating a whackadoo cultist and alienating most of the country."
I've got a degree from Harvard Divinity School (sorry I had to pull that out) and I can tell you that if you think Mormonism is a fairy tale, then you'd better take a hard look at Christianity. You obviously haven't studied biblical or Christian historyor you wouldn't be making claims that your biblically-based religion is any more authoritative than Mormonism.
Rather than taking you through biblical and Christian history (which you ought to know but clearly don't), let me just say that both the New Testament and the Old Testament have been thoroughly proven to be the product of something other than "infallible" others. Both the Old and New Testaments were written by normal (not necessarily prophetic) authors, most of whom wrote far after the events in question and wrote for cultural as well as political purposes.
So if Mormonism is based on a lie, what is Christianity based on, which claims to be based on some infallible god-breathed scripture, which supposedly spawned a "perfect" religion full of "perfect" people.
Secondly, you clearly are now aware that the original Christian Church (the Catholic Church) considers you and all other Protestant churches heretical. Did you know that? Did you know that your version of Christianity is just one of many, and that the original version thinks your church is way off its rocker.
Sorry buddy, but if you're going to attack Mormonism so salaciously, you'd better be prepared for the arguments that can be made against your brand of Protestant Christianity. |
|
Of challenging Joeb's superior intellect, Obama has opened an office in Utah, with paid staff. He said he intends on fighting for Utah. It'a about time someone did. He (the empty 0) might have figured out that we in Utah are getting tired of being taken forgranted. Just this weekend I was at a home of an elderly person I am aquainted with, and they had Obama signs on front lawn and stickers on their cars. I asked what they were thinking. They said that they are tired of not being taken seriously with their votes. They know that the empty O will be awful for the country, but they think it's time the country wakes up and knows how important utah can be in a tight race.
Sorry Joeb. I did not mean to insult you, but that's what some are thinking here in 'repressed' Utah. |
|
"Polls have McCain leading Obama by 23 percentage points in Utah. His campaign would have to completely collapse for him to lose that state."
Oh I agree that he will probably win in Utah, but I think McCain will have a much poorer showing in Utah than the polls indicate. I see the evidence of McCain's campaign collapsing every time I read the news, and the conservative voters he's so happy to thumb his nose at? A lot of them live in Utah. Romney took over 90% of the primary vote in Utah, and among those primary voters, they broke 25% for Obama and 25% for McCain in a Dan Jones poll after Romney dropped out.
I think that level of dissatisfaction with McCain is not being reflected. In 2004, Bush took Utah with 72% of the vote. In a poll I saw today, McCain was polling at less than 60%.
In any case, what I think is important about Utah is that if a Republican is showing any kind of weakness here, then things must be really bad. |
|
|
|
Leading Obama by 23 percentage points in Utah. His campaign would have to completely collapse for him to lose that state.
I think it is probable that Obama will win for the following reasons.
1) Only once since 1952 has the incumbant party retained the White House three elections in a row.
2) Bush's popularity is in the low 30's.
3) The Right track/Wrong track numbers are 78% wrong track.
4) Obama will have three times as much money to spend as McCain will have.
5) The Republican Brand name has been heavily tarnished due to the recession, Iraq, scandals, etc.
The best I am hoping for is that McCain can limit the damage and set the GOP up for a resurgence in 2010 and 2012. |
|
Well I'm a Mormon, and my first choice for the GOP nominee was Thompson (Church of Christ), as I'm a strong believer in Federalism. When Thompson turned out to be a dud, my second choice was Duncan Hunter (Baptist) because of his strong conservative record. Only when Duncan Hunter dropped out did I shift my support to Romney, who I felt was the best, most conservative candidate left in the race. I researched Romney pretty thoroughly, and while he was not the most conservative candidate, his record and positions were severely misrepresented by Democrats and Republicans alike. Actually, the more I learned about him, the more I liked him.
Now that McCain is the nominee I'll probably vote for him, depending on who he selects as VP. He can pick pretty much anybody, but I have a list of deal-breakers: any Democrat, including Lieberman; Bloomberg, but I repeat myself; Huckabee, Giuliani or any other liberal RINO. He could pick some total unknown and still get my vote, as long as he doesn't pick someone totally objectionable.
It's hard enough to stomach a vote for McCain without having to choke down some awful VP as well. If he does pick a VP that I can't hold my nose for, I'll be voting for Bob Barr or else not voting for president at all.
However, in the end, I don't think that McCain has the slimmest chance of winning. He's targeting moderates/independents, who I think are going to heavily vote for Obama. Leftists will vote for Obama as well, and conservatives, whose votes neither candidate seems to even want, will splinter or stay home.
I don't know a single person here in Utah that's even remotely enthusiastic about McCain, and I know a lot of Republicans that say they're thinking of voting for Obama. When Romney dropped out, a poll of Romney supporters here in Utah showed them evenly split between McCain and Obama. I think there's a chance that McCain may actually lose Utah, and if so, he doesn't have a prayer nationally. |
|
Now the Lord uses a flat tax. 10% of your increase. I figure what works for him should work for us.
Me: So, uh, why does God need money? I mean, he'd God.
Or to paraphrase Captain Kirk, Why does God Need a Starship? |
|
Sorry Cavalier, I meant to write fair tax, not flat tax. Although "fare" tax might be a more appropriate name. At least it would remind people that every time they buy something they are paying a fare to the Fed.
Now the Lord uses a flat tax. 10% of your increase. I figure what works for him should work for us. |
|
I won't be voting for McCain just because he puts Romney on the ticket. I think they are both profoundly mistaken about the nature of the Middle East problem -- and are bringing more danger to America as a result of their mistaken analysis.
That said, the Mormon vote should be taken seriously by McCain and whomever else is running. Even though their numbers are much fewer than the numbers of some other faiths, Mormons have a history of being much more likely to actually vote.
As for me and my house...? My husband and I are voting for Bob Barr.
The Republicans have not earned my vote and I am not rewarding them for bad behavior. The Democrats have not earned my vote and I am not rewarding them for bad behavior either. Instead, I am voting for Liberty.
Agency is the Prime Directive of my church. I have been taught that coercion, even for a good cause, is the plan of Satan. I notice that Republicans and Democrats are steadily eroding away our liberty, supposedly "for our own good." This disturbs me. |
|
Hillpuss: Your comments to JoeB are well intentioned I am sure, however, you need to know that this guy is a very unpleasant person. I doubt very much he will change. Here's hoping, but the best predictor of future actions are past actions and JoeB's actions are very poor, that is putting it nicely.
Don't waste your time.
Me: Actually, I'm a very pleasent person. I'm the easiest person in the world to get along with. I just don't like liars, I don't like religions based on a lie, and I don't like the idea of my party committing seppeku by nominating a whackadoo cultist and alienating most of the country. |
|
Bigot are awesome
I just decided my new hobby should be to make people who post anti-mormon rhetoric or negative mormon rhetoric look like the silly people they are.
Not unlike, say, democrats...these people usually spend a great deal of time researching to find material/arguments that support their beliefs, ignoring facts and reality that do not support thier beliefs.
Smart people, on the other hand, research to discover facts and truth (both for and against any preconceived notions) and then accept the hard-earned and unbiased reality.
You bigots out there: I appreciate your zeal in the cause of destroying the LDS church and I realize that you will all join forces in debunking my efforts. I must state now that I do not plan on making this my full-time occupation. I have a family, a job, and other hobbies outside of making you guys look like idiots. Don't get cocky if it takes me a while to respond to your silly comments. Just know that while you are doing your work, I will be doing mine.
You all need to learn that your mentality is what makes us conservatives look stupid. Good job.
Good luck you shmucks
Me: Heh, heh, heh...
Besides the fact you apparently haven't worked out the whole noun-verb agreement thing, you totally miss my point.
Trust me, I have done research on LDS. Quite a lot of it. The biggest problem with debunking LDS is not that the facts aren't out there to do so. They are. The problem is that much like flat-earthers, Mormons refused to see the truth when it is presented to them.
|
|
John says : JoeB Claims to Be Christian
But then look at what he writes:
Doesn't sound very Christian to me, or for that that matter it doesn't sound very Republican? Since when did the GOP not support capitalists?
Lastly, these are just plean MEAN-SPIRITED comments. JoeB, I hope you can change your heart and learn to respect others who believe differently than you do.
Me: I can't respect stupidity. To be a Mormon, you have to throw all intelligence out the window and believe a lie. You have to ignore history. You have ignore common sense. Mormonism is based on a lie, that God had a special message for Joseph Smith and revealed to him things that didn't happen. It's not a difference between believing things that are different, it's the difference between the truth and a lie.
On the subject of capitalism, I'm all for capitalism. What I am against is using it to sanctify greed and immoral behavior. The problem is that somewhere along the line, the GOP lost the ability to make a distinction between capitalism and avarice. It will cost us dearly in November.
|
|
I think some on this actually have full time jobs posting here!
Good luck! We've got your back. |
|
|
Good job, Strong. Bigot works for both plural and singular use in your magical world, I'm sure. Your post reeks of intelligence. |
|
I just decided my new hobby should be to make people who post anti-mormon rhetoric or negative mormon rhetoric look like the silly people they are.
Not unlike, say, democrats...these people usually spend a great deal of time researching to find material/arguments that support their beliefs, ignoring facts and reality that do not support thier beliefs.
Smart people, on the other hand, research to discover facts and truth (both for and against any preconceived notions) and then accept the hard-earned and unbiased reality.
You bigots out there: I appreciate your zeal in the cause of destroying the LDS church and I realize that you will all join forces in debunking my efforts. I must state now that I do not plan on making this my full-time occupation. I have a family, a job, and other hobbies outside of making you guys look like idiots. Don't get cocky if it takes me a while to respond to your silly comments. Just know that while you are doing your work, I will be doing mine.
You all need to learn that your mentality is what makes us conservatives look stupid. Good job.
Good luck you shmucks
|
|
|
It takes money from my family. Pocketbook economics is important to me. If it effects my family's bottom line, then it matters to ME. |
|
"It would be ironic if an army of Mormon supporters in key states were the reason John McCain became president" ...
No matter how many times you say it until a selection of a VP candidate........the final demise of the Republican Party comes with a ticket consisting of two social liberals. We're witnessing classical neurotic behavior in the RINO party with their continued narcissistically hostile and borderline confrontational behavior directed toward their base.
|
|
Matthew Yglesias writes:
"Romney seems to be a figure who most Americans find despicable."
C'mon Matthew, how can you possibly back up this claim? As someone posted above, on the day Romney dropped out he had 4.1 million votes to McCain's 4.8 million.
Sorry man, but "most Americans" didn't find Romney "despicable," at least not most Republicans--which is all that really matters.
This is shoddy journalism, and dare I say biased journalism. You weren't by chance a Huck supporter in the primaries were you? |
|
"It would be ironic if an army of Mormon supporters in key states were the reason John McCain became president."
Yeah, REALLY ironic, considering Mormon voters have been critical to LOTS of Republicans winning the presidency.
Please, pseudo-journalists, stop writing as if Mormons are some brand new voting bloc that just appeared on the scene. Mormons have been staunch supporters of the GOP for decades. Sheesh! |
|
And it's probably nice for a lot more people than you think. It eliminates a lot of the seepage that the current income tax induces because of the difficulty of tax compliance. This will result in economic growth, more jobs, lower prices, etc., etc. etc.
And while Huckabee is the best choice for VP, I wouldn't want him on McCain's ticket, because it looks to me that McCain is doing everything he can to lose this election. |
|
And I will lose money. Sorry, your 'flat tax' does not work for this family. I'm sure it's nice for some, but not for a family of 10 with 3 incomes, a home, a business...and serious deductions from all these.
Anyway, the point of huck is now moot. He's just signed a contract with Fox News. At least it's a paying gig. That's tells me he's no where near vp slot. |
|
|
title was "the perfect is the enemy of the good." Sorry about the mixup. There'll be no charge for that last post. |
|
|
Did you compare your family's income under the Fair Tax with what it is under our present system? |
|
the good. Yes, putting the taxing power in the hands of the states would go far in taking down the Federal Government's power a few notches. But we had a similar sort of arrangement under the Articles of Confederation, and they found that the states were slow in sending in their portion of tax collections. Of course, the FedGov might do better today in getting those revenues, since it is so powerful.
The Fair Tax has an advantage over other tax reform proposals in that is not just an idea some people have, but is actually a bill before Congress.
As to the argument that a huge black market would develop, there are the real life examples of Texas and Florida, which are large political entities that rely on a sales tax without the development of huge black markets. It's just too much trouble to seek out criminal elements to buy your milk and eggs.
And the Tax Authority organization, while powerful, would have administration over some 40 million businesses, as opposed to 180-200 million individuals, which is much smaller scope of power.
Also, businesses themselves would be paid for collecting the Fair Tax, something like 1.5% of sales receipts, so they would have an incentive to collect the tax. |
|
Your comments to JoeB are well intentioned I am sure, however, you need to know that this guy is a very unpleasant person. I doubt very much he will change. Here's hoping, but the best predictor of future actions are past actions and JoeB's actions are very poor, that is putting it nicely.
Don't waste your time. |
|
But then look at what he writes:
"A guy who belongs to a whackadoo cult that our strongest demographic hates and fears for good reasons. A guy who made his fortune by looting companies and eliminating jobs, just what most Americans fear right now. A guy who in time of war, went off on a BS missionary trip to France while their relatives were off fighting in Vietnam and their sons are currently fighting in Iraq."
Doesn't sound very Christian to me, or for that that matter it doesn't sound very Republican? Since when did the GOP not support capitalists?
Lastly, these are just plean MEAN-SPIRITED comments. JoeB, I hope you can change your heart and learn to respect others who believe differently than you do. |
|
In theory the Flat Tax sounds good. But I'm afraid the reality will be a huge increase in Black Market buying and selling.
Organized crime would love a sales tax of 17-20%. It will create thousands, if not millions of new customers trying to save a little money on purchases.
It would also replace one government bureaucracy with another. You will start seeing tax stamps on all products, not just cigarettes. (Does alcohol have tax stamps?) If the IRS is eliminated, some agency will have to be created to administer, enforce and collect these taxes.
I would rather see personal federal taxes eliminated altogether. Let the Federal govt present a bill to each state, each year for services rendered and money received from the Fed. Let the states determine how they want to collect taxes. Fair tax, Flat tax, bake sales, whatever.
This would change the focus of politicians away from seeking more and more pork-barrel money and give them incentive to fight the Fed over the bill every year.
|
|
There are a few, and some are very vocal as evidenced on these pages. But on a whole, I don't think there are as many as we are led to believe. Are there folks that won't vote for a Mormon? of course there are. But there are even more who would vote for the man, regardless of the brand of Christian they believe in.
Huckabee has just signed a contract with Fox News. Thats great news. It proves that he is totally out of consideration for any veep slot. I don't like what he did in the primary's. He stood by, when he could have put an end to the religion baiting. I also don't like his policy's. Call me a bigot, but I don't trust him. I'm glad he has a paying gig now. Romney, at the time he dropped out, was very close to McCain. But it's not popular votes that always wins. Romney did the math, and knew it was a waste of ANYONES money to stay in the race. |
|
"Romney seems to be a figure who most Americans find despicable."
How can he possibly substantiate this claim? Romney got 4.1 million votes to McCain's 4.8 million on the day he dropped out.
Doesn't sound like not too many GOPers found Romney despicable. |
|
[JoeB131 on June 13, 2008 3:32 PM]"The GOP voting rank and file have shown the good sense to step back from the abyss by nominating McCain.... And who do the people like MC and others want to wed him with?"
A phony. Make that a multimillionaire phony, who can provide lots of jobs for campaign workers and consultants.
Editorial
Monitor staff
December 22, 2007
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 071222/OPINION/712230301
When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.
Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.
The Romney backlash: Conservatives are coming home
Dec. 26, 2007
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=The+Romney +backlash%3a+Conservatives+are+coming+home&articleId=bc5bd6 0b-68a2-4427-93aa-d0fc2548ba3d
In this primary, the more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes. That is why Granite Staters who have listened attentively are now returning to John McCain. They might not agree with McCain on everything, as we don't, but like us, they judge him to be a man of integrity and conviction, a man who won't sell them out, who won't break his promises, and who won't lie to get elected.
Voters can see that John McCain is trustworthy. Mitt Romney has spent a year trying to convince Granite Staters that he is as well. It looks like they aren't buying it. And for good reason.
rent-a-conservative feeding frenzy on Romney $$$
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg /662716ea96f5a746
|
|
|
There are 10 in my family. 2 adults, 8 kids. |
|
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator
Fill in all the info, and see if you're better off now, or with the Fair Tax |
|
|
How large a family do you have? |
|
[Alex 1 on June 13, 2008 2:30 PM]"if you read them long enough, they end up repeating the same stuff over and over"
That's not surprising, given that the same claims keep coming up.
E.g., that Romney has class, is solidly conservative, and excites voters.
[Qweenmumof7 on February 6, 2008 10:54 PM]"I'm glad he's [Romney is] the only one with character in this race. His class shows where junkyard dogs like Huck and McCain show true colors."
|
|
|
|
"Tell me, does anyone, ANYONE actually read those links let alone the comments that have apparently nothing to do with anything? "
Not very often. I rarely have the time, not to mention that if you read them long enough, they end up repeating the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over again. I must say, if it weren't for Synthesizer and JoeB131, there would be only a handful of comments on this article. Apparently, they really, really, really care about Romney. |
|
She's in rare form today.
Tell me, does anyone, ANYONE actually read those links let alone the comments that have apparently nothing to do with anything? |
|
[cavalier973 on June 12, 2008 10:56 PM]"Romney, when he got in a bind in the Michigan Primary, started promising billions of Federal monies to the auto industry to "save jobs", then he comes off looking wishy-washy over his newfound conservatism"
Compare
disgusting Romney
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=11056
11 January 2008. "Romney in Seven Words"
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mark_i/2008/jan/11/romney_in_ seven_words
On Wednesday, after his loss in the New
Hampshire primary, Gov. Mitt Romney returned to
Boston to lick his wounds and conduct a telephone
fundraiser before heading off to his next must win
state of Michigan. ABC Radio microphones were
there and they featured an audio quote from
Romney in their top of the hour news broadcasts.
Romney was encouraging his phone bank
volunteers with a little pep talk when he
unintentionally summed up his entire campaign;
ironically hitting upon the reason why he has failed
to gain any traction with conservatives despite
spending the most money of any Republican. ABC
News Radio was contacted by telephone and
confirmed the following quote from their report.
"Hit the phones today make all the promises you
have to, and…make sure that we get the funds that
we need to keep on propelling this campaign
forward with power and energy."
“Make all the promises you have to.”
That’s Romney in a nutshell. Of all the Republicans
running, he alone has sought to clarify, cover, and
indeed change past positions in an attempt to curry
favor with conservatives. In the process, Romney
has developed a reputation not as a principled
conservative, but as a politician who will say almost
anything and take almost any position to win votes.
==
Many of Romney’s supporters who are perplexed by
his many positions or who feel abandoned by their
candidate’s focusing on Michigan....
|
|
|
|
Shap:That's right JoeB. All 13 Million Mormons are either idiots or liars.
Me: Well, I dispute that there are in fact 13 million Mormons in the US. That's a lot of wishful thinking. (I think LDS itself only claims 13 million throughout the world.) However, according to US Census data, only 2.5 million claim to be Mormons. Which means that either LDS is lying about their membership rolls or 3.5 million Mormons are too stupid to fill out a census form properly. :-D
Shap:Of course my atheist friends would apply the same logic for all candidates who proclaim a belief in God. So that effectively eliminates another 275 Million Americans from the pool of those smart enough (or honest enough) to be president.
I'm not sure my religious friends would be big on a government full of atheists and agnostics so...
Me: And you know what, if that's how an atheist wants to make a judgement, more power to them...
And I'll make mine. And so did a lot of people, given how badly Romney LOST.
|
|
[cavalier973 on June 13, 2008 12:10 AM]"claim that Romney has 'flipped but not flopped'; I say, just give him some time, with the right circumstances, he may flop yet!"
Compare:
Helman, Scott. 9 December 2005. "Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law
He reverses stand on Plan B"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/09/romney _says_no_hospitals_are_exempt_from_pill_law/
Reilly, seeking the Democratic nomination in the governor's race, took credit yesterday, as did other Democrats and reproductive rights organizations, for pressuring Romney to abandon a policy they said would have only burdened victims.
''I think we're all very happy that the administration has backed off on this," Reilly told reporters yesterday at a press conference with representatives of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. ''This administration was on a road that would have made it worse for women in that position."
Romney flips, & backs forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense morning-after abortion pill
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e6675e4-6f6e-4c84-b1a 1-5d3a743d140e%4021g2000hsj.googlegroups.com
Romney an abortion chameleon on videotapes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=54f3c9a0-e082-44f8-94d 6-21110c3c25c5%40s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
great article "Mitt missing convictions"
control - f/ "find" for: bucki
http://www.prolifefederation.org/custom3.asp
|
|
[Joshua on June 12, 2008 11:30 PM]"His plan for dealing with health care in MA differs greatly with his plan as POTUS. While you may not like what Romney-care has to offer, you can at least take comfort knowing that Gov. Romney doesn't plan on replicating it on the national level. Please stop using such scare tactics and stick to the facts."
Do you consider RomneyCare a success story?
Do you support passage of Barney Frank's Employment Non-Discrimination Act?
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_ro mney_files
BW: Do you support the federal lesbian and gay civil rights bill that would ban anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit?
MR: This is Barney Frank’s legislation?
BW: This is not just employment, but also housing, public accommodations and credit.
MR: I am not fully aware of that bill, so I would need to study that more fully. I am aware of the legislation that Barney Frank proposed [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and do support that and would vote in favor of that.
I also, philosophically, support efforts to ban discrimination in housing. The particulars of the bill you’re speaking about I have not studied, so I shouldn’t state a position. Philosophically, I support efforts to remove discrimination from the workplace, from housing, from education and so forth.
Romney for & anti- outlawing discrimination over sexual orientation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=06bdb44e-7578-4dd6-833 c-8f0a00b1aa29%4025g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
Igra: homosexuality a "poisoned stream" in human history
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1144986392.4048 25.109570%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Note: I currently suspect that the claim that homosexual activity played a role in the Inquisition is based on bogus anti-Catholic anti-Inquisition propaganda.
|
|
That's right JoeB. All 13 Million Mormons are either idiots or liars.
Of course my atheist friends would apply the same logic for all candidates who proclaim a belief in God. So that effectively eliminates another 275 Million Americans from the pool of those smart enough (or honest enough) to be president.
I'm not sure my religious friends would be big on a government full of atheists and agnostics so... |
|
[JoeB131 on June 13, 2008 12:44 PM]"Utah is the least of McCain's problems. If he takes Romney, the Evangelicals, who hold sway in most of the south, may well stay home, which gives Obama an advantage in VA (13), OH (20), PA (21) NC (15) and MO (11)."
What's Romney-supporters' explanation for Romney coming in:
4th in SC?
3rd in Missouri?
As everybody knows, Romney spent boatloads of money in advertising.
What's Romney-supporters' response to this?:
[Pro on May 5, 2008 11:07 PM]"Romney came in largely third or lower in the old Confederacy. He is poison down there.
South Carolina: 4th, Tennessee: 3rd, Georgia: 3rd, Alabama: 3rd, Oklahoma: 3rd, Missouri: 3rd, Arkansas: 3rd."
|
|
[Joshua]"It's the old 'I don't care how awesome his proposals are....he's obviously going to abandon it once in office.'"
Romney lying in 2002, or lying now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43TVmSoaQ7c
[Con4fred on January 10, 2008 4:28 PM]"Syn
You point out something that Mitt supporters should really consider.
If Mitt has flipped on so many issues, what's to keep him FROM doing the same thing if he gets into the WH?"
Romney has no core beliefs as far as I can tell. If he becomes the nominee, and if he then becomes President, the base will have to put constant pressure on him to try to keep him from 'evolving' leftward.
Does anyone here disagree?
Do you think a President Romney would be susceptible to much influence by the Linda 'Greenhouse effect'?
Lithwick, Dahlia. 3 August 2005. "The Souter Factor
What makes tough conservative justices go soft?"
http://www.slate.com/id/2123935/
"The Greenhouse Effect" is the name of a
phenomenon popularized by D.C. Appeals Court
Judge Laurence Silberman referring to federal
judges whose rulings are guided solely by their
need for adulation from legal reporters such as
Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times. The idea
is that once confirmed, justices become desperate
to be invited to the right cocktail parties and conform
their views to those of the liberal intelligentsia.
Robert Bork recently told the New York Times, "It's
hard to pick the right people in the sense of those
who won't change, because there aren't that many
of them. … So you tend to get people who are
wishy-washy, or who are unknown, and those
people tend to drift to the left in response to elite
opinion."
great article "Mitt missing convictions"
control - f/ "find" for: bucki
http://www.prolifefederation.org/custom3.asp
|
|
Joeb
You might want to talk to President kerry or Gore about them 5 votes we in Utah have.
We matter.
Me: If Kerry had gotten Utah's 5 votes, Bush still would have won.
Utah is the least of McCain's problems. If he takes Romney, the Evangelicals, who hold sway in most of the south, may well stay home, which gives Obama an advantage in VA (13), OH (20), PA (21) NC (15)and MO (11).
|
|
Mr. B.: If you are truly trying to find a neutral, objective study of LDS (or any other faith for that matter) you will never find it.
Me: I'm not asking for nuetrality, I am asking for one credible scientist who doesn't happen to be LDS to say, "Hey, this is evidence that it might be true!" There are a lot of people who are atheists, but never less have to acknowledge that the Bible is in fact a record of people who existed. The archeology and history of other lands back it up.
Mr. B. There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who believe a thing and those who don't. The rest don't have the energy or interest to care.
I seen you post many times, yet I am not sure what you believe. Yet you seem to enjoy criticizing the faiths of others without exposing yourself to the same scrutiny.
Me: This isn't about me... Really, I don't believe in a lot of anything... The message of Christianity for me isn't about the dubious accounts of miracles. It's about what Jesus had to say.
Mr. B:I doubt that any of your posts will turn people away from the LDS faith, but neither do they inspire or assist others in finding peace in their lives.
You may be an "Anti" your entire life. But you will find no joy down that road.
Me: It's not my goal to "convert" anyone, merely to stimulate thought. To me, this is a debate about the capability of Willard Mitt Romney having the reasoning skills and integrity and intelligence to run the country. Clearly, he doesn't if believes in crap.
|
|
You might want to talk to President kerry or Gore about them 5 votes we in Utah have.
We matter.
|
|
Mr. B:joe, Are you also anti-Christian? Because virtually none of the Bible can be proven through science and academics either. For example, they've never found any evidence that king David ever existed.
Me: Well, that's not true, since articles of royal insignia have been found from his descendents...
But I will go through it again. I do believe that large chunks of the Bible are false. In fact, it is impossible to be a true literalist because the bible contains so many internal contradictions. For instance, Matthew and Luke give contradictory lists of Jesus ancestors, and they trace his lineage through Joseph. (Only my patron saint would have bought THAT story.)
There are parts of the Bible I actually HOPE are false. For instance, the God of the story of Noah is a complete jerk, not worthy of anyone's worship.
However, I do see a major difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The Bible was a collection of books, most of them written centuries after the fact, putting to paper oral traditions. Of course, you are going to have embellishments the more a story is retold. If fact, what I have noticed is the closer the writing of the book is to the actual event, the less impressive the miracles truly are. Further, the collection was selected by men, and men are fallible. Why is the Gospel of Luke canonical and the Gospel of Thomas apocryphal? Yes, there may be mistakes, but they were understandable mistakes.
No such wiggle room on the Book of Mormon. Either Smith made it up or he didn't, and ALL of the evidence points to him making it up. |
|
|
|
[Joshua]"he turned around a dire economic situation in MA without raising taxes (yes, go on about the 'fee' vs 'tax' issue if you must)"
Do you consider RomneyCare's employer assessment to be a tax increase on businesses?
30 June 2007. "The Making of Mitt Romney
Ambitious goals; shifting stances" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/ar ticles/part7_main?mode=PF
After months of hard bargaining by Romney aides, legislators, advocates, business leaders, insurers, and healthcare providers, a compromise bill emerged from the Legislature in early April with a goal of providing coverage for virtually all of the state's more than 400,000 uninsured. Gone was the payroll tax in the House version. In its place was an annual fee of $295 per person for companies that had 11 or more employees and didn't provide a health plan.
At first, Romney voiced no objections to the fee, which some conservatives saw as a new tax. But in an April 11 op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, Romney said he would take ''corrective action.''
Democrats who were invited to Romney's bill-signing extravaganza the next day at Faneuil Hall felt betrayed, furious that Romney had vetoed the ''employer assessment'' and seven other sections of the 145-page bill.
Politically, Romney was able to have it both ways. With a stroke of his pen, the would-be presidential candidate signed a landmark law and used his line-item veto to wash his hands of something resembling a tax increase to help pay for it. The vetoed parts of the bill were certain to be overridden in both the House and Senate anyway.
//////
Romney calls Ted Kennedy co-collaborator on health care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hM
RomneyCare funds MA abortions, and is KennedyCare/ HillaryCare,
bottom section of
Huckabee vs. Romney
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg /b8874f14563f4df0
|
|
Akennas shreiks "He is a pathological liar, a serial slanderer, one of the most ignorant and arrogant posters I have ever had the displeasure to run across, and was the one who taught Huck's son how to torture dogs (well, I made that last one up, but you get the point...) Why Townhall tolerates him is beyond me - he absolutely skunks up any blog.
Do not feed JoeB131."
Me: Kiss, kiss.
Hey, as long as you are against torturing dogs, then you'd be against Mitt strapping his Irish Setter Seamus on the roof of the car for 12 hours driving to Canada until the dog lost bowel control.
Or is this one of those LDS double standards, where something is only bad if an Evangelical does it. |
|
QM7:Obama has just
Opened an office in Utah, with paid staff. He said he is going to force Mac to spend money here, and that Utah won't be a 'given'. So, picking a semi-native son (Romney went to BYU for his undergrad, and owns a home in Deer Valley) takes Obama off the table in Utah. I talked to 3 women today, who will vote Obama - and they are LDS! They said they don't like McCain. They also said they might reconsider if Romney is picked. I asked if it was because of his religion. They all said no. It's the eocnomy, stupid.
Me: Utah only has five electoral votes. Who gives a hoot!
|
|
|
|
[Lori]"the church faithful....watched him during the 2002 Winter Olympics"
Do you like Romney's handling then of the Scouts?
Bresnahan, David M. 3/27/2002. "Romney: The cover-the-road politician"
http://www.888webtoday.com/bresnahan6.html
Romney showed his colors during the Olympics when he made it clear that the Boy Scouts would not be a part of the Olympics as they had traditionally been throughout modern Olympic history. There would be no Scouts in uniform for the public or press to see. Romney wanted no complaints from the homosexual community or the world press.
Every past Olympics, regardless of host country, the local Scouts participated in some way -- in uniform. In fact, some of the past Olympics even used Scouts in uniform to present the awards to the Olympians.
However, Romney had no problem with including homosexuals as part of the Olympic Games. In fact, he went out of his way to include them in a way that would gain him significant support from that constituency. Remember, Romney knew three years ago that he would return to Massachusetts after the Olympics. He knew that the majority of Massachusetts voters oppose the BSA ban on homosexual leaders, are mostly pro-choice, and support gay rights issues.
Romney was very careful to eliminate the Boy Scouts from view. He appeased them by permitting Scouts to perform litter clean up of Olympic sites before the Games began, and to help with putting up and taking down of security fences. All out of view of the public and the media.
==
He also very cleverly made sure the homosexual activist community were invited to participate in the Olympics in a meaningful way that they would brag about.
The homosexual website Gay.com from the United Kingdom did that very thing on January 30, just before the games began. An article read by homosexuals all over the world proclaimed: "Winter Olympics First To Welcome Gays.
|
|
under the fair tax a family could avoid paying federal taxes completely except for the cost of energy. Everything a family needs to live can be purchased second hand or grown by the family itself, thereby avoiding any federal taxation. If it could generate its own electricity, it would not pay any federal taxes except for the taxes on fuels. |
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone, if you ignore Synth completely, he/she/it will leave mom and dads basement (something they dream of) lose the weight, clear up the acne and join the real world.
Just ignore he/she/it and flag it. |
|
keep the faith!!! Remember the government of the U.S.A. will serve God's plans whether it wants to or not. As followers of Christ, we should focus most of our attention on the world to come, not necessarily to the exclusion of this world, but with the realization that the trials and tribulations of this life are fleeting compared to eternity. Followers of Christ have had to live under more dire circumstances than we currently face in the U.S.A. If God is for us, who can stand against us.
I do not mean to belittle the race for POTUS, but I am trying to put it in its proper perspective.
|
|
[DEBORAH on June 13, 2008 4:17 AM]"Romney is the only candidate who can bring excitement to the general"
JoeB131 on June 12, 2008 5:42 PM:
If there was so much "enthusiasm" for Romney, why did he lose? He didn't just lose, he lost to a guy that a sizeable portion of the GOP despises and a few consider to be a Democrat.
This was after spending 120 million dollars, half of it his own money, and he couldn't get people to come out and vote for him.
Romney came in fourth place in South Carolina. Fourth Place. The guy who came in third, Fred Thompson, dropped out the next day.
He lost Iowa to Huckabee, a guy who was running on beer bottle deposits at that point. He lost New Hampshire to McCain, who everyone wrote off as dead the year before.
Oh, he won Michigan- barely. Since the Democratic Contest in Michigan didn't count, you'd think that the GOP would be that more important. Wrong. Romney won 337837 votes, Hillary won 328151 in an election that DIDN'T COUNT AND DIDN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
And again, any benefit he brings to economics is nullified by the fact as a venture capitalist, he eliminated jobs.
////////////////////////////////
York, Byron. 4 February 2008.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTQ5ODgxNTViNTRjMjIxY2 M5NjdjNjRiODMwNmUzZTk=#more
If Romney does not make significant progress on Super Tuesday, he might decide not to make the investment required to go on.
The key to that decision, and a fundamental question of this campaign, is whether Romney’s advertising blitzes have any lasting positive effect, or whether they are like putting a lighter under a piece of damp wood. The wood will stay lit as long as you hold the flame beneath it, but it will never catch fire by itself. Romney might be like that with the voters. As long as he keeps the TV ads going, he can do well in the polls. But take the ads away, and he fails to catch fire.
|
|
|
Fair tax is not fair to my large family. Period. |
|
I've been saying that all election. I'm quite sure Mr. Huckabee is a nice guy. But he is NOT, imi NOT ready for prime time. I shudder to think him anywhere NEAR the whitehouse. I have other issues with him, but my biggest is that we don't need a jester in chief, a pastor in chief or a petty, jelous, and vindictive guy anywhere near the white house. We already have McCain. Some great choice the indy's gave us. With Romney, we at least have a guy I'm comfty with, just in case.
As far as Romney being LDS. It's time the few who hate us/them, to sit down, shut up, and accept that we are here and have an equal right to run for high office. You don't get just the Mormon cash anymore. |
|
You write: "Riiiiiight.....so all Romney supporters are "Rombots" who act as parrots for Romney's handlers, while Huck supporters are all real salt of the earth committed Christian conservative types who blow "mittwits" out of the water with substance and logic...... :)"
You forgot "Salt of the Earth committed Fair Tax supporter types"; that's the faction of Huckabee supporter that I belong to.
Describing the Fair Tax as beginning and ending with eliminating the IRS makes me wonder how much time you've spent studying the proposal.
The Fair Tax eliminates the Income Tax, the Corporate Tax, the Estate Tax, the Capital Gains Tax, and the FICA Tax. In short, you are no longer penalized for earning an income, however you do it. It brings out into the open the hidden sales tax that we are already paying, through higher prices (corporations don't really pay taxes, they either pass them along to customers in the form of higher prices, or they let the stockholders take the hit, through lower profits) and makes the government rely on that for financing. |
|
|
I saw Gov. Huckabee, in person, last weekend at the state convention, and I have to tell you he is not V-P material. He comes off better on TV than in person. Romney and hardly anyone else had a chance in the primary because "Rudy" the non candidate got all the early debate time. Most of us didn't get a chance to vote, because 30% of the voters in independent heavy states had put McCain over the top before it started. Super Tues. in Feb. is why we have him. Romney is the only candidate who can bring excitement to the general, not to mention intelligence and commanding presence. I can't hear" my friends " much more. Mccain and Obama side by side on tv debates"oh no". Remember how smug and sactimonus McCain came off in the debate where Romney gave him the power look, arm on the back of the seat move. And besides as my first time to vote nephew reminds me "we have to have someone capable of taking over when the secret service has to wrestle the "football" away from McCain. The most important election of our liftime and these are our choices"Lord Help Us" |
|
Riiiiiight.....so all Romney supporters are "Rombots" who act as parrots for Romney's handlers, while Huck supporters are all real salt of the earth committed Christian conservative types who blow "mittwits" out of the water with substance and logic...... :)
Really though, I think Romney and Huck supporters have a lot in common, and it's too bad that the primary campaign has caused us to drift so far apart... :(
The warm fuzzies I get from Romney on the econ are based on results....which means *gasp* his record pre POTUS run. Romney has a proven ability to "turnaround" bad situations (heck, he wrote the book!). He streamlines organizations in order to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.
Mitt Romney turned the scandal-ridden SLC Olympics into one of the most successful Olympic ventures in US history. He made a career out of stripping down and revitalizing flailing businesses, and he turned around a dire economic situation in MA without raising taxes (yes, go on about the "fee" vs "tax" issue if you must).
What excites me about Romney (I actually didn't like him when I first heard about him....long story) is his willingness and ability to investigate federal programs to seek out underperforming departments and streamline the bloated bureaucracy in DC. Gov. Romney understands that the true "tax" on any economy is not merely the income tax, but the total value of government spending. He has a broad-based, market-driven solution for revitalizing the economy and stripping down our federal government. Frankly, Gov. Romney's plans show a little more understanding and economic experience than any proposal that begins and ends with "getting rid of the IRS".
As for the oft-mentioned Michigan comments, I'm going to do a little reading. If Romney was truly advocating government subsidies for car manufacterers, then I would most likely disagree. Happy cav? :) |
|
Despite my reservations, I would voted for Romney for President in November; I think he would have been a much better candidate than McCain. I just think that Huckabee was better than them both.
Part of my animosity to Romney is really a reflection of my animosity toward the Mittwits; the Rombots as some call them. For weeks, I read in post after post how I was a stupid bigoted evangelical who only voted for Huckabee because of identity politics, because I hated Mormons, because I wanted to sneak into the National Archives and replace the Constitution with a copy of the King James Bible; it got pretty old. |
|
You write that I'm saying: "I don't care how awesome his proposals are or how much sense they make or how smart the man is with the economy because he's lying! Therefore, I'm going to disregard any factual evidence or reasoned arguments and just reject the entirety of Romney's agenda because he's obviously going to abandon it once in office."
You missed the point of my argument, I think. My point is not that I think Romney's lying, but that I don't have to take the word of a Romney supporter that he's not lying. Nevertheless, taking this paragraph you just wrote: If Romney WAS lying about his "great proposals", what good does it do me to support him? What awesome proposals did Romney have, anyway? He was going to cut taxes, sure; that was good. SO WAS EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. Did he have any tax reform proposal, or was he fine with just monkeying with the current tax code?
What was his stance on free trade? From the debates, I gathered that Romney was for "free trade but fair trade", which was the same stance as Huckabee (and Obama, for that matter).
And Romney already abandoned his presumed agenda; the support of free enterprise, while he was campaigning in Michigan. It follows, logically, that he would abandon that principle in office, if he felt political pressure to.
Not that McCain is a pillar of political strength and courage or anything, but at least McCain went to Iowa and said "I won't subsidize ethanol." Romney went to Michigan and caved, saying "I will subsidize the auto industry." |
|
I've responded to your posts a number of times, it seems; there is a drop down menu of subject lines I've written before, starting with "Qweenmum...."
Anyway, I know you're making a joke about Huckabee being a "flop" for sticking the race out until there was really a winner (I mean, there was always a lot of potential that McCain could have an attack of apoplexy or something and drive people away).
But you've cleverly sidestepped my argument rather than answering it. Am I supposed to just trust you Mittwits that Romney's never ever going to go back to being pro-abortion? Then there's no shame in me asking you just to trust me that Huckabee isn't 'X' (insert whatever pet peeves you have with Huckabee) The only guarantee of Romney's solidness on the abortion question and other issues is for Romney to have some time to prove his authenticity himself. |
|
Yeah, sorry for the double post.
Ok cav...so you're a Huck guy who doesn't like Romney. Big surprise... ;)
You found Huckabee to be an inspiring speaker and thought Romney was a bore. I, on the other hand, found Huckabee to be a preacher with no political substance and Romney to be polished, presidential and inspiring (mostly in the faith and CPAC speeches). Many conservatives (myself included) found Huck a little too heavy on the quips and light on the policy/solutions.
I really don't want to re-hash the primary fight... |
|
Yes, you could use that argument! However, I still like Romney's national plan better than Huck's, so it wouldn't bother me if you did. :)
Ok, so basically you're saying you don't trust Romney to govern the US any differently than how he governed MA, no matter what he says. It's the old "I don't care how awesome his proposals are or how much sense they make or how smart the man is with the economy because he's lying! Therefore, I'm going to disregard any factual evidence or reasoned arguments and just reject the entirety of Romney's agenda because he's obviously going to abandon it once in office." |
|
Yes, you could use that argument! However, I still like Romney's national plan better than Huck's, so it wouldn't bother me if you did. :)
Ok, so basically you're saying you don't trust Romney to govern the US any differently than how he governed MA, no matter what he says. It's the old "I don't care how awesome his proposals are or how much sense they make or how smart the man is with the economy because he's lying! Therefore, I'm going to disregard any factual evidence or reasoned arguments and just reject the entirety of Romney's agenda because he's obviously going to abandon it once in office." |
|
was to embrace and promote the Fair Tax. That would have drawn off enough Huckabee supporters to clinch him the nom.
Well, he might ought to have worn camoflauge every now and then...(or overalls...or CAMOFLAUGE OVERALLS!! AT THE DEBATES!!!)
I've said this before, but, seriously, instead of Romney trying to give some inspiring speech about the "Faith of Our Fathers", he should have said something more along the lines of "D--n Straight, I'm a Mormon!! And Mormonism by its history and its theology has a deep-seated suspicion of Federal Power, which makes me the most conservative candidate!" Instead, he came off looking like a sissy Yankee (I don't necessarily think Romney is a sissy Yankee, but he sure looked like one), peddling some plain-vanilla candidacy (Washington is broken, by golly! We're gonna cut those pesky taxes, and how!)
Huckabee was a much more inspirational speaker (remember his answer to the "Would Reagan endorse you?" question?)
Byron York on Romney: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ4MGM5MGVmZDE3Y2Q0M zA4Y2E0ZjE5ZTIyMTQ0OGM=
Byron York on Huckabee:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTY0NGI2ZDE2ZGI2MmY2OW E5NDA3MjY1MTRmMzNlNzg=
|
|
|
The LAST person they wanted to face was a guy like romney. No dirt even under his fingernails to dig up. |
|
was the candidate who took an extra month and a half to even come close to Romnney.
Success, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder. |
|
I could use that argument (he was dealing with problems as governor that required solutions that wouldn't work at national level) to defend some of Huckabee's stances.
Besides, the promise to prop up auto companies was made while Romney was running for President. If the idea of a government/corporation partnership doesn't worry you, then you haven't read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg yet.
And then you gave me a good guffaw with this claptrap: "While you may not like what Romney-care has to offer, you can at least take comfort knowing that Gov. Romney doesn't plan on replicating it on the national level."
I'll take no such comfort. The Mittwits all claim that Romney has "flipped but not flopped"; I say, just give him some time, with the right circumstances, he may flop yet! |
|
|
Why ruin a record in postings? I hope he/she/it is gearing up. It might be a long 4 years in that parents' basement! |
|
He get's it. He understands the only change I have right now, is the change from the 100 I spent filling up my tank. No other (including McCain, Obama, Paul and Barr) don't get it.
It's the eocnomy, stupid. No other understands it. Sorry your guy imploded. But that's the nature of te beast. You'd be crowing too, if your guy rose to the top. |
|
One thing that conservatives can forget sometimes is the concept of federalism. I haven't taken the time for an in-depth study of "Romney-care", but I do know that the MA legislature butchered it enough that the finished product is not what Romney intended.
Frankly, Governor Romney was just that: a Governor. He addressed a perceived need in his STATE with Romney-care, but also understands that such a solution is not viable on the national level. His plan for dealing with health care in MA differs greatly with his plan as POTUS. While you may not like what Romney-care has to offer, you can at least take comfort knowing that Gov. Romney doesn't plan on replicating it on the national level. Please stop using such scare tactics and stick to the facts.
Romney isn't solid on economic theory because he was a brilliant businessman. He's solid on it because he's, well, SOLID on it. If you'd read his proposals for stimulating the national economy, cutting taxes and making the US more competitive in the global economy then you'd stop using old news from MA and maybe find a reason to like him. |
|
[Joe on June 10, 2008 8:39 PM]"I like Mitt if Team McCain portrays him as the economic go to guy."
Do you disagree with any of this Ruffini?:
Ruffini, Patrick. 2 February 2008. "Intransigent Huck Voters"
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/3e361230-a9d8-4d02-89 da-b74fcc04dced
fiscal conservatism is where the opinion leaders are, and social conservatism is where the votes are.
==
it seems to me that the conservative establishment's decision to go nuclear first on Huckabee (who never had a shot but speaks for voters we need in November) before McCain (who always had a shot but speaks mostly for himself) will rank as a pretty serious strategic blunder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opened an office in Utah, with paid staff. He said he is going to force Mac to spend money here, and that Utah won't be a 'given'. So, picking a semi-native son (Romney went to BYU for his undergrad, and owns a home in Deer Valley) takes Obama off the table in Utah. I talked to 3 women today, who will vote Obama - and they are LDS! They said they don't like McCain. They also said they might reconsider if Romney is picked. I asked if it was because of his religion. They all said no. It's the eocnomy, stupid. |
|
"I have yet to see substantive reasoning explaining why Romney would be a bad choice for VP."
How about Romneycare in Massachusetts? Even Glenn Beck says that it introduced socialized medicine into that state. Couple that with the fact that Romney, when he got in a bind in the Michigan Primary, started promising billions of Federal monies to the auto industry to "save jobs", then he comes off looking wishy-washy over his newfound conservatism.
I also don't buy the argument that since Romney was a brilliant businessman, then he is solid on economic theory. Bloomberg and Soros made a lot more money than Romney did; does that mean they be even better than Romney on the economy? |
|
I know this is a little off topic but I can't leave a lie unanswered.
Saying Joseph Smith started a "fake" religion to get rich is like saying we invaded Iraq for oil. If it was true, then it failed miserably. He never made a dime out of it but did it anyway in spite of all the opposition he got, the pain it caused his family and the fact that it eventually took his life.
Whether or not you believe his story, it doesn't take much research to see that at least this much is true. |
|
Check out this JoeB partner in crime:
"Why men of God, great groups like the Southern Baptist Convention are willing to support a man who is part of a satanic cult is beyond my ability to comprehend. I realize he is running to be the commander-in-chief, not the theologian-in-chief. I realize that he has a great marriage, great kids, and says he will stand for family values. He actually might be one of the best men there is to be President and lead this nation.
Even if all of that was 100% true, it is still no excuse to support a man who is part of a satanic cult"
Aren't those lovely sentiments from a supposed man of God?
It's from liveprayer.com. Just came upon it while researching another topic. I especially LOVE the comment that although Romney might have been the BEST man for the job, he wouldn't have voted for him. |
|
Thanks for the heads-up Akennas. ;)
JoeB, the original post was concerned with Gov. Romney's appeal to Latter-day Saints in Western states, as was my response. The results of South Carolina are irrelevant to such a discussion of the Rocky Mountain West, as the voters and issues are so very different.
I have yet to see substantive reasoning explaining why Romney would be a bad choice for VP.
Alex 1: I also have concerns about some potential negatives for Romney should he agree to the Veep slot. However, I feel that Jindal and Palin are too young (Jindal) and too inexperienced (both, really) to do McCain much good this year. I'd rather see both gain more experience and continue to champion conservative values for years to come. Both governors have enormous potential to become national standard-bearers for the conservative movement.
|
|
Romney may be the spoonful of sugar that helps the bitter McCain medicine go down, but it still turns my stomach to think of that caustic, wrongheaded, pedantic turd getting votes due to Romney's class and brains.
What a choice: A died in the wool Stalinist who hates me because I'm white and a tottery old misanthrope who is half-whacked except when he goes to war. Jindal, Romney, Palin, all are diminished by association with the senator from AZ. That being said I will choose the lesser of the two evils and vote for the S.O.B. |
|
He isn't going to win the election is really my belief. The MSM is far too entrenched and trigger happy to jump to the Obamessiah's defense over any sort of accusation or attack saying is it "racist" (oh no anything but that). So frankly I really don't think it matters who McCain picks. If he were to pick another hack politician like Huckabee to take down with him in a failed presidential bid then that would just be icing on the cake for all the crap they pulled on Mitt.
Sarah Palin is too new to the scene and honestly right now she is just more useful to the GOP as the governor of Alaska. Same with Jindal in Louisiana.
Huckabee...no comment...I've made my views on him clear. Crist...maybe...but given the disenfranchisement of the FL voters by the DNC I don't think they will be jumping on the Obama bandwagon. But again he isn't going to win most likely.
Check http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml |
|
I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say despicable... Granted, he did invent the tyrannical mess of Romneycare, did sign $50 abortion into law, did cooperate with an MA supreme court decision on gay marriage, but he has now supposedly seen the light.
Hopefully it will stay that way. Romney is not distrusted because he is a Mormon so much as he is distrusted *because* he is a business leader, and because his positions have changed *so* radically. That may fly with some conservatives, but when the economic conservatives were busy wondering how they could toss social conservatives under the bus (*cough*Rudy*cough*), social conservatives realized they didn't want or have to put up with such treatment. They were particularly irate with just how raw a deal Huckabee was shown by both "conservative" newspaper columnists and talk radio, for of all things, balancing a budget (yet Rudy supposedly ran the most successful conservative government in 40 years according to George Will... yeah right).
So I'll make a deal with the Romney supporters. Lay off my man, Huckabee, and I'll lay off yours, Romney. I for one was amused when I was told repeatedly that I was a liberal by the likes of Hugh Hewitt, yet when Super Tuesday came around I was suddenly a "solid conservative" who was now invited to vote for Romney, just to stop McCain. What convenient timing for such a change of heart!
A political coalition works in so far as there is cooperation and mutual respect. Offering none to either social conservatives' champion or even their platform does not accomplish this. |
|
"It (Mormonism) has been thoroughly debunked by a host of scientific and academic disciplines."
joe, Are you also anti-Christian? Because virtually none of the Bible can be proven through science and academics either. For example, they've never found any evidence that king David ever existed.
If you are truly trying to find a neutral, objective study of LDS (or any other faith for that matter) you will never find it.
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who believe a thing and those who don't. The rest don't have the energy or interest to care.
I seen you post many times, yet I am not sure what you believe. Yet you seem to enjoy criticizing the faiths of others without exposing yourself to the same scrutiny.
I doubt that any of your posts will turn people away from the LDS faith, but neither do they inspire or assist others in finding peace in their lives.
You may be an "Anti" your entire life. But you will find no joy down that road. |
|
I'm a rock-solid Romney nutjob, but I'm not sure I want Romney as VP. I don't want him to have to restrain his gag reflex with McCain's liberal platform.
I say we nominate the adequate nominee who will give the most people warm fuzzies. Whoever can buy the most voters, who is at least nominally qualified and conservative, should be our nominee.
As for my list of most substantively qualified: Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin. |
|
|
I lived in south carolina, and believe me, those people live in the dark ages. They are very narrow minded, and bigoted in many ways. I went out to lunch with a friend of mine who was black and the stares we got when we went into the restaurant made me think I was back in the 50's, and this was the 90's. And we were both females. They don't accept anyone unless they are "from the south" etc. So if that gives you any insight on those people...... |
|
If there was so much "enthusiasm" for Romney, why did he lose? He didn't just lose, he lost to a guy that a sizeable portion of the GOP despises and a few consider to be a Democrat.
This was after spending 120 million dollars, half of it his own money, and he couldn't get people to come out and vote for him.
Romney came in fourth place in South Carolina. Fourth Place. The guy who came in third, Fred Thompson, dropped out the next day.
He lost Iowa to Huckabee, a guy who was running on beer bottle deposits at that point. He lost New Hampshire to McCain, who everyone wrote off as dead the year before.
Oh, he won Michigan- barely. Since the Democratic Contest in Michigan didn't count, you'd think that the GOP would be that more important. Wrong. Romney won 337837 votes, Hillary won 328151 in an election that DIDN'T COUNT AND DIDN'T MEAN ANYTHING.
And again, any benefit he brings to economics is nullified by the fact as a venture capitalist, he eliminated jobs. |
|
|
Sarah Palin as McCain's Veep. |
|
Some argue that Latter-day Saints (Mormons) "will vote for McCain regardless of who the VP is". As a student in Utah (surrounded by Rocky Mountain Mormons) I can tell you that there is little to no enthusiasm for McCain and even less for Huckabee (take that Ed Rollins!). In a year when Democrats are poised to pick off Nevada and Colorado, Republicans should be looking to energize their Western base. Note that Romney's support is not limited to Latter-day Saints in the Rockies: Mormons in Colorado and Nevada make up 2% and 11% of those states' populations respectively, yet Romney won over 50% of Republican votes in each state (60% in Colorado!).
Romney's appeal, however, is much broader than GOP voters in the Rockies. His potential to help McCain pick off the key battleground state of Michigan, as well as his image as a econ policy-wonk/successful businessman, should greatly tempt McCain and party leaders in an election year where the economy is king. Romney's proven appeal in Michigan, as well as Florida's post-industrial Jacksonville area, leads one to believe that he would perfom well among similar demographics in Rust Belt battlegrounds.
Also note that McCain has 1) repeatedly turned to Romney, a proven fundraiser, to help boost his struggling campaign finances and 2)tapped Romney to talk up his economic initiatives at campaign events and on national media outlets.
Finally, the notion that a McCain-Romney ticket would cost the GOP Ohio and Virginia is absolute nonesense. The GOP is in greater danger of losing Nevada and Colorado if they don't find a way to energize Rocky Mountain Republicans than they are of losing Virginia and Ohio due to Evangelical concerns over a Mormon VP.
Mitt Romney presents the GOP with an opportunity to energize the Rockies, appeal to battleground voters in Michigan, and sharpen McCain's economic policy message.....all much-needed advantages in a close election year.
|
|
|
You are right in that Obama would be a lot worse to have in as President....we agree on this. |
|
|
Hope your vacation was restful so you can now spar with the LDS and pro-Romney people. The fact is that most LDS people are true conservatives, accept for many in my ward who are ignorant, media-fed folks. Of course I live in the Bay Area and too many people in my particular ward are typical uneducated Californians. Anyway, we shall see what happens...but we need a true conservative as McCain's VP to offset his liberal approach. |
|
|
|
JimP writes: Thursday, June, 12, 2008 3:54 PM
VP CHOICE
From what I have read on numerous blog posts, it seems as if Mac selected anyone who ran in the primaries it will turn off a group of voters who really don't like the choice. Perhaps he needs to stick to a VP who wasn't running this year. Not that I care, because I am not planning on voting for McCain.
Me: Well, duh. Of course. The only reason McCain won is because everyone else was unacceptable to someone.
But still, B. Hussein Obama would be a lot worse.
|
|
Oh, yeah, that's a credible source, a website set up by the LDS to prove the Book of Mormon isn't a lie...
Do you have anything from a scientific journal, university or institution not affiliated with LDS in any way that supports their position?
Oh, Flat Earth society archives don't count. |
|
More identity politics? You are a total idiot, Joe, I say with deep christian love.
go to http://www.fairlds.org and spend some time reading what real scientific and academic disciplines say.
I guess when it comes to you telling what is a lie, as the saying goes, what you say is what you are. Everything you said in the 5th and 6th paragraphs is a blatant lie. Being full of charity, I will assume you aren't a conscious liar but rather simply ignorant. Get some education, brother. |
|
|
From what I have read on numerous blog posts, it seems as if Mac selected anyone who ran in the primaries it will turn off a group of voters who really don't like the choice. Perhaps he needs to stick to a VP who wasn't running this year. Not that I care, because I am not planning on voting for McCain. |
|
OHM:who cares what Romney's theology is
If someone has policy disagreements with Romney, that's one thing.
But I believe there are more evangelicals than we think who would actually not vote for a Mormon---even if they agree with him on policy issues.
Me: Well, I can't speak for Evangelicals, not being one. But yes, I probably agree with 95% of what Romney's handlers told him he stood for in this election. (Of course, the fact he needs image consultants and handlers to tell him what he stands for is kind of off putting to me.)
And I still won't vote for him because he's LDS.
And the thing is, it has nothing to do with dogma.
Mormonism is a lie, started by a con man who decided that making up a fake religion was a quicker way to get rich than conning his neighbors into trying to find gold on their property. It has been thoroughly debunked by a host of scientific and academic disciplines.
If someone says, knowing that it is a lie, that this is still what he believes, I seriously have to question that person's reasoning skills. A president has to make good decisions, or people die. He has to show the ability to look at things objectively and make good choices. Otherwise people die.
|
|
MaineConservative writes:
Minion
Sorry JoeB, I meant minion. I'll bet the Stalkesizer isn't far behind you. Probably with your burger.
ME: Well, given your obsession, Princess, I'm amazed you have the audacity to call anyone a "stalker".
I'll let you go back to (not) ignoring me.
|
|
I hate this stuff. Thinking those of a certain group all have the same mind set and vote together like a herd of sheep. No way Mormons will vote for someone just because he is a Mormon. I know a dozen or more who would never vote for Harry Reid! And one who would never vote for Romney.
There is general support for Romney among the church faithful but not because he shares the religion with 6 million Mormons nationwide. It is because they know him better than anyone else. They see know his true character contrary to the way he is mis-portrayed in the press. They watched him during the 2002 Winter Olympics and as governor. And they vote mostly conservative. But believe me, there are many Democrats among the mostly conservative church members.
Mobilizing Mormons would be tough to do politically because the church is strictly neutral and would not allow any use of buildings, assets or member rosters for such an effort.
I personally hate this idea because it says to the world that Romney was only chosen for his religion and not for the myriad of talents and abilities he has to offer. I think he would hate the idea too. The presidency is above this kind of thing. A person's faith should be irrelevant to voters. His expericence, vision and values are the only ideals we should consider. I love Romney, but count me out of this group. |
|
|
Sorry JoeB, I meant minion. I'll bet the Stalkesizer isn't far behind you. Probably with your burger. |
|
If someone has policy disagreements with Romney, that's one thing.
But I believe there are more evangelicals than we think who would actually not vote for a Mormon---even if they agree with him on policy issues.
|
|
...trouble??"
I think there are other choices who would be as good as Romney only without the trouble.
Won't most mormon folks vote McCain anyway? |
|
Joe: If he is presented as the wonky economic guy of the team. The guy who will change and influence policy (in a similar way Rubin did for Clinton). Now some may say we are in the mess we are in now because of Rubin. I disagree that you can blame this economic downturn on mere deregulation which Rubin promoted. It is more complex than that. What Rubin did is he helped stopped Clinton from making critical mistakes on the economy. McCain should have a guy like Mitt along with Phil Gramm at treasury. If those two guys can see eye to eye, McCain might have an effective economic team.
JoeB131: The thing is that Rubin wasn't the running mate. He was appointed to a position which wasn't voted upon and most Americans had no idea who he was.
The question of a running mate is does he help or hurt the ticket. Now besides the fact that taking him as a running mate would offend Evangelicals, where Obama is already making inroads, the real question is, does his background really help.
Ted Kennedy was able to crush Romney in 1994 by playing commercials of former AmPad employees complaining (rightfully) that Bain Capital had looted their company and put them all out of work. Simply, this is NOT the message you want to put forward when people are terrified of losing their jobs, not getting raises that keep up with inflation, and all the other things Corporate America is doing right now.
|
|
|
Really? Again, people vote for whatever reason they have. However, if you vote strictly based on someone's religion, gender, or race, you are a flat out loser. The MSM is surely going to push the "you may be a racist if you don't vote Obama" theory. Well, will they push the "you are a religious bigot if you don't vote for McCain/ Romney"? Yeah, I'll be waiting on pins and needles for that one. |
|
MaineConservative writes: Uh, Oh. This will be bad
I can already feel the stampede of JoeB and his minions on the way.
Me: I have minions? News to me. Hey, one of you minions, go out and get me a cheeseburger.
|
|
|
|
|
If he is presented as the wonky economic guy of the team. The guy who will change and influence policy (in a similar way Rubin did for Clinton). Now some may say we are in the mess we are in now because of Rubin. I disagree that you can blame this economic downturn on mere deregulation which Rubin promoted. It is more complex than that. What Rubin did is he helped stopped Clinton from making critical mistakes on the economy. McCain should have a guy like Mitt along with Phil Gramm at treasury. If those two guys can see eye to eye, McCain might have an effective economic team. |
|
|
I can already feel the stampede of JoeB and his minions on the way. |
|
|
|