Tuesday, July 15, 2008
|
|
Romney Becoming More Likely "Veep" Pick?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
10:33 AM
|
First Read reports:
"At a fundraiser in New Mexico last night, McCain cracked this joke at Romney’s expense: “I’m appreciative every time I see Mitt on television on my behalf. He does a better job for me than he did for himself as a matter of fact.” Bada bing. If McCain can start joking about someone, you know they've made it into his mental inner circle. Romney may very well be higher on the short list than anyone realizes. The biggest roadblock for many in picturing a McCain-Romney ticket is McCain getting over his personal reservations about him. But joking about him is a start."
It seems to me that Romney's chances are getting better and better every day. Really, the only major reservation about whether or not McCain would consider Romney was whether or not McCain could warm up to him personally ...
|
|
just fainted somewhere. Romney Rising!
Morons. |
|
And less negatives. It's pretty hard to do. Especially someone on the radar screen.
I'm still with Ann Coulter - the day Mitt dropped out she called for him to be VP, and she was right. |
|
That is funny. But it is not moronic to pick Romney if Romney is presented as the economic ying to Mac's national defense yang.
Romney's strength is being a business oriented policy wonk. McCain is weak there. Bringing these two kids together could be like bran flakes and raisins. |
|
|
As much as I like Romney, Palin would be a much better choice. Young, dynamic, smart, great grasp on the energy issue, and she is not a white male. I wanted Romney to get the nomination after Thompson, but it's time to start utilizing some of the young rising talent that the Republican party needs. Romney might bring Michigan on board, but with Palin on the ticket, we start to bring more women on board, plus we will have both the national security issue wrapped up and the energy issue wrapped up. |
|
I would love to watch McCain and Romney campaign together -- they really hate each other and the forced smiles and back slaps would be a joy to watch.
Also: let's start the Mormon bashing band wagon again! Donny and Marie for the Supreme Court! |
|
Is that Romney is campaigning for McCain better than McCain is, but of course he couldn't say that.
I think way too much is made of their former rivalry - they hardly knew each other in the first place, and McCain knew, as did everyone, that Romney was the man to beat.
Most people who really know Romney end up thinking he's a pretty great guy. I'm sure they are getting along just peachy.
|
|
Yes, Palin is not a white male, but if she were the white male gov of Alaska (700,000 people) we would not be talking about her, period.
She's a very new gov and her real qualifications to be pres are non-existent. She doesn't meet the can be pres if nec. test, and she's never done a national campaign. No one knows how she would perform. Too risky, and I think we've had enough identity politics. Besides that, her baby boy needs her a lot more than we do. |
|
Not another 700 postings in 2days about Romney being LDS. That's old news, been there, done that, even have the tee shirt.
Palin good on radar, but not for veep - yet. Give her time. REally. I want someone who has matured a bit more. Palin would drive home the ID politics that McCain is trying to play with Obama on. inexeperienced, too young, etc. Yes, I know she's the new gov of Alaska. Bigh whoop. Lets see what she can do with it. Also, I would be hesitent in pulling a conservative gov out, when the governors mansions for conservatives is dwindling fast. Had a conservative been in CA, and not a liberal GOP married to a Kennedy, we'd have fight going over Gay marriage. Instead, he sat back and said OK, Let's do it.
McCain/Romney 08 |
|
If that were the ticket, I'd get excited. If Romney signs onto McCain's D-lite agenda of Gore-bull warming taxes, amnesty and the rest, he will confirm his critics charges that he is a political chameleon, willing to change on a dime for expediency.
|
|
Romney would be an excellent choice. He would put Michigan in play, and solidify Colorado and Nevada.
I still think Palin would be the best choice. |
|
would certainly make it easier for me to vote for McCain this Fall!
|
|
The left loves to mock Romney's LDS faith, because it's all they have on the guy!
With that, every time I hear someone bash Romney's church, we should be quick to bring up Obama's church(s). If we're comparing LDS faith to Trinity United (as an example of one of Obama's churches) I'd much rather be on the Romney side of that argument. Bring it on...this could get messy.
CasualConservative.com |
|
|
I'm not a fan of identity politics, but as long as Obama has a teleprompter, he comes across as smart and politically savvy. Even though Palin and Jindal are both reasonably young, both bring way more to the table than Obama. You can also say that about Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell. It would be nice for them to season a little longer, but Obama is dangerous, and the GOP has to pull out all stops to keep him from becoming President. |
|
Joe, in January and February we were battling over McCain and Romney in the primaries, but with them on the same ticket, I think it looks pretty good. I think you and I can be friends! =)
For the record, I was a Romney guy, but if Romney would have won the primaries, Obama would be up 25 points right now. McCain/Romney is a winning ticket.
CasualConservative.com |
|
I believe McCain will use everything Mitt Has to
offer.. then kick him aside..I still sense a
undertone of contempt toward Mitt from the McCain
camp. Is anyone suspicious of the lower end cable
channels promoting Mitt as best pick for vp.?
Remember when McCain trotted out mommy to trash
Mormons? Revenge is mine.. sayeth McCain..!!
Think about it.. Mitt had access to big funds..
McCain .. well.. those nasty.. legal pre- nups ! |
|
Palin brings pizzazz. Look at her videos. She obviously has a ball in front on the camera. And people would look like punks attacking her, but she's untried in the national arena.
But Mitt brings a solid intellect on the economy (and on a bunch of stuff and can really help the country, even internationally. Did you hear his Hertzilya Conference talk?
Mitt, who speaks French BTW and no doubt much Spanish, could be an elegant, articulate figure on the international stage. He gives a stirring, substantive, dynanite speech. He's the kind of intelligent figure the international community would respect.
Palin's beauty, charm and wit would be a vote-getter. But Mitt's in a better position to actually serve the country right now.
Joe's right: Sell Mitt as savior of the economy. Keep Palin in Alaska and keep her talking about energy. Keep Jindal in LA and keep him talking about conservative reform.
Build a team of smart, conservative, bright appealing Pubs and keep them in the public eye. |
|
First he says Romney is an effective campaigner, then he says he wasn't. He is now but he was not earlier. Seems to me the only difference as I have watched Romney both then and now is that this time McCain is the beneficiary of Romney's excellent skills. McCain does not know how fortunate he is to have such a man on his side.
Yeah, I know it was supposed to be a joke, but its so backhanded that its insulting. He might as well have said Romney is only good when he is working for me. But then McCain calls people little jerks and thinks its funny. A Republican version of Don Rickles whose humor I never appreciated either. |
|
|
I don't want sizzle and pizzaz. I want boring and experienced. Palin is fine for where whe is for now. Maybe as Mitts running mate in 12 or beyond. But right now, she feeds into exactly what is wrong about Obama. Too young, too inexperienced. He's got sizzle and pizzaz too. But I want boring and steady and experienced running my country. If I want fireworks, I'll go sit in Alaksa for a few nights. |
|
McCain has TSMS: Typical Small Man's Syndrome. (Apologies to any of our vertically-challenged brethren out there on this blog.)
Mack's snide, gratuitous remarks to Mitt during the primary made Mack look small, mean, petty and not too bright.
Mitt, a TTM (Typical Tall Man) magnanimously let it all roll off his back and got on with business of getting the winner elected.
Mack says he loves the country. If he does, he will pick Mitt, who also obviously loves the country and has an enormous capacity to serve her.
I believe voters, who are running scared right now on the economy, will gravitate to Mitt who exudes strength and competance.
Wall St. will love Mitt and the people counting their pennies should too.
|
|
according to his supporters, is how blue collar Reagan Democrats will flock to vote for a very, very wealthy son of privilege who made his fortune on the backs of the less privileged. Even the Dems agree with them on that. In fact the Dems will probably help them advertise that facet of Romney's appeal.
There must be extraordinary pressure on McCain from the country club wing of the party to nominate Romney. Romney's ties to Wall Street and the ultra-wealthy explains the pressure. They want one of their guys close to the presidency and with Romney that is what they get. |
|
with Romney on the ticket, but Romney will make it far closer than it needs to be. |
|
I agree. I want substance, steadiness, character and intellilect. But it ain't what you and I want. It's what the voters want. The mission is to convince them to want what we want.
The voters want bread and circuses. They fer sure don't want boring.
And truly, people may be content with a boring, experienced CPA. But no people ever followed a boring leader. You really need someone who can get the endorphans going.
That's Mack's problem. Boring. Uninspiring. I find Mitt strong and inspiring. He adds to the ticket if the people can be convinced. |
|
|
Wanting the Romney in Veep slot. |
|
You are probably right. There are two things at play: winning and governing. If Mack could win with Mitt on the ticket, I (and a ton of can pundits) believe Mitt would be the very best once they were to be elected.
Peeps need to be able to see that Mitt would be good for the country. |
|
would be good for the Wall Street types and the very wealthy. I see no evidence in his record of his impacting working people positively. |
|
There is a good article about Romney as VP at the NY Sun:
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/romneys-rationale/81904/
|
|
What helps working people? A strong economy.
I am a small business owner in CA. 75% of all Americans work for small businesses. Obama's tax hikes kill us (and our employees) because we get lumped in with General Motors.
What will help "working" people will be to strengthen the dollar, lower energy costs, keep corporate taxes low, keep the capital gains taxes low and reduce government spending.
But it's not a simplistic them-against-us dichotomy. The international economy is a huge, complicated game of dominos. It would be a good thing to get a person at the top who understand how the global economy works.
I don't think Mitt would be in there as a shill for Big Business. I really believe he is a good, compassionate, honorable person who would do his best for the American people--especially for the people on the bottom.
The fact is we are all interrelated: Wall St. and Main St. are in this together. |
|
The Sun makes a strong case. People gravitate to strength. Obama really is a wishy/washy flake. Mitt is strong, confident, informed, competent.
The American people are running scared. It seems like a no-brainer. |
|
K.G.:
"It seems like a no-brainer."
================================================
Couldn't agree with you more! I've used the phrase "no-brainer" many times in reference to Romney for VP. I really think it's gonna happen!!! :o) |
|
I hope you're right. Zogby and Rasmussen on Hannity yesterday calling it for either Crist or Palin...
...now that Crist is getting married so that "some folks" can rest assured he's not gay. Good grief!
Maybe Crist has had a deal with Mack all along...since Crist's endorsement and delivering Florida.
Mack calls himself a maverick. I say that's just another name for not-to-be-trusted. You never know were he's going to land on anything.
A true maverick is so much smarter than everybody else he goes against the stupid masses and stand alone in doing the right thing. I think the operative word here is "smart."
In that case, "no-brainer" in terms of Mack takes on an ominous overtones. |
|
The rich getting wealthy by exploiting the poor is the old class warfare, labor union, socialist, Dem caca. Now, if you want to say that a bunch of blue collar people actually believe that, you're right.
That's why the Dems are winning. They have convinved people that taxing the "rich" and growing the nanny state is way to build a strong America.
Phil Gramm's bone-headed remark doesn't help the stereotype.
But in my view, Mitt Romney could be the working man's best friend. |
|
K.G.:
You're right...McCain has that maverick--never-know-what-he's-gonna-do thing going on. Crist's timing is just so blantantly obvious and ridiculous. I read somewhere something about Crist's gal that made getting married to her questionable. I'll try to find the article and post tonight. It may have been on a gossip site...which would make the info less credible.
Crist and Mac--two gray-haired old looking men. Yuck.
Gotta run...more tonight. |
|
|
|
|
What does "son of privilege" mean? Do you think that Mitt Romney has not worked his butt off for everything he has? I really don't understand this bashing of people who were lucky enough to grow up with wealth. Growing up with wealth is no guarantee of future wealth. In fact, it is often opposite. Romney is an incredibly hard worker. Also, one of the sad facts of business is that you have to cut back sometimes to make it more profitable or to survive. Should Romney had advised that companies just take losses and keep jobs, then go out of business and lose all the jobs they created? As a result of a successful company, there will be more jobs and more return for investors. Many people, not just the rich, are investors. Plus, the product will be better for the consumer. |
|
|
There is enormous pressure from smart conservatives for Mack to pick Mitt. |
|
|
...that McCain will pick someone he so obviously hates. |
|
|
The response has been nothing but positive over at http://www.MittforVeep.com ! We need some excitement added to this race! |
|
Romney will look good to Reagan Democrats, go for it. I disagree. It gives Obama an opening. JSM has no need to do that. Representative Steve King would be a much better choice than Romney. He will connect with the Reagan Democrats. Romney will drive them away. |
|
'Joe writes: 'Romney's strength is being a business oriented policy wonk.'
ME: Mitt Romney is policy failure. Mike Hucakbee was way more successful Governor.
Joe writes: 'McCain is weak there.'
ME: So it Mitt. Making money in the private sector and making good economic policy, are two almost entirely different matters. If that is the test, McCain should pick somone with public sector success. |
|
I'm open, but send a link to a video. I want to hear him speak.
I don't believe we've heard his name bandied about since the Iowa caucus. Fill us in. |
|
They crossed over for Reagan because he believed in America - (winning against communism) smaller government - (Get the gov off by back), and by allowing people to keep more of their own money (lower taxes).
Romney absolutely attracts those voters. Romney was the only one in the primary consistently talking about the greatnest of America, (while Huck was out glooming/dooming feeling everyones pain, Carter/Clintonesque style).
Romney has a history of crisis management, fiscal conservatism and a business background of strengthening companies, skills we desperately need right now. No one else on the scene can bring that to the table. |
|
Romney strength is in his incredible ability to see a problem and solve it. He made millions doing so and in the process helped companies grow. Romney is a data person - he loves it. He is the most intelligent man who ran. It is Romney's skill set and background that makes him the best person to deal with the economy.
Sheesh, if you don't see that Pro, you are just completely closed to rational thought. |
|
|
He does not connect with this voter. Your grasping at straws, eddie. It's most likel Romney. Deal with it. |
|
...are made of this time around. A bunch of them lost jobs to outsourcing. I'll bet a bunch are looking for government to solve their problems, not looking for government to get off their backs.
On the other hand, I cannot see Joe Sixpack voting for the flaky, less-than-patriotic young socialist who wants open borders in order to provide free health care to the world.
If they present Romney as a hard-core patriot (which he is) and a solution to middle class problems, it will work. People responded to his message in depressed Michigan. |
|
|
You are absolutely correct, Romney would be wiping the floor with Obama. His optimistism and energy are assets to him. Unfortunately, McCain is the candidate. Romney would help McCain. McCain will not help Romney. |
|
Much of the discussion here has been about whether Romney as VP would be good for McCain, and for the party. But we also have to factor in what's good for Romney, as that will surely play a part in his decision-making
Put simply, if Romney associated himself with John McCain's campaign now, would this more likely help or hurt his political career in the future? |
|
..have to ask because Mack could be the kiss of death in con circles in my opinion. However, it's kind of funny. A whole bunch of good Dems have taken themselves off Barack's list in no uncertain terms.
Nobody but Kay Bailey Hutchison and Condie have take themselves off Mack's list. Mitt obviously thinks it's good for him--or at least good for the country. He really, really wants it. Palin and Jindal act like the would do it too.
Somebody said the Dem VP prospects are fleeing from Obama because he's loser. I don't know if that's the case. If obama were to win, they would be stuck for 8 years cloistered in the VP's office in Obama's shadow.
Considering Mack's age, his VP could be sitting pretty in 2012, if not before. At any rate, Mack's so low key that a Mack VP might get a lot of exposure.
Everybody's vying. Crist would take it in a heartbeat. Also Hunter and Huck. |
|
He's now proven himself as an excellent campaigner, and we've been able to see more of the man - it's all good. More people now believe he should be the one running against Obama, than the day he dropped out. (When most conservatives were crestfallen.)
He's careful to remind folks that he has major differences with McCain, and he always frames his support in the obvious larger fact that helping McCain win is in the best interest of America.
The VP spot would be the best jump start to running again because Romney will surely excel in the job, and more people will get to know him and see his leadership qualities. |
|
|
Don't you think he would? I do. |
|
|
|
Mitt totally overshadows Mack in every way. That's why I always thought they were the odd couple. Strange chemistry. But......we'll see.
Both Cheney and Lieberman overshadowed the presidential candidates, at least intellectually. I remember folks saying: Hey! How come Cheney and Lieberman are the VP's?
|
|
Given the coolness that apparently exists between McCain & Romney, it not hard to imagine Pres. McCain banishing VP Romney to the senate, insisting that he spend all his performing his constitutional duty of keeping senators from talking out of turn. In this case, the vice-presidency would really not be worth a bucket of warm . . . well, you know.
I have big, broad doubts about Romney's conservative bone-fides, but I wouldn't wish such a thing on him.
|
|
At this point anybody would add to, not detract from McCain's ticket. Romney would add the most, in my opinion. (for all the reasons you wise posters mentioned above!)
Now look at Obama's ticket; nobody wants on, and everbody they're considering are small peanuts, compared to the boost Romney would give the McCain ticket.
They are in a tight race right now, and Romney would be enough to push the (R) ticket over the top.
CasualConservative.com
|
|
|
But it would be in the country's best interest. Romney can still be active helping McCain govern and do his data-driven best to make some major improvements in Washington. I see McCain delegating to him the energy crisis, a jobs package, helping to negotiate trade agreements, and overseeing a program to help states get more citizens to obtain health insurance having learned from the test program in Massachusetts. How wonderful if he becomes VP! We will get 8 years of his brilliance and success, and then maybe we just might get 8 more. I think 16 years of Romney in Washington will leave it a much more streamlined, effective, and moral place. |
|
|
|
|
It almost seems as you picture President McCain as a decorative monarch, like Elizabeth, while "Prime Minister" Romney is the politician who actually rolls up his sleeves & gets a day's work done. Am I reading you rightly? |
|
PC writes: Romney strength is in his incredible ability to see a problem and solve it. He made millions doing so and in the process helped companies grow. Romney is a data person - he loves it. He is the most intelligent man who ran. It is Romney's skill set and background that makes him the best person to deal with the economy.
Sheesh, if you don't see that Pro, you are just completely closed to rational thought.'
ME: Give me a break. One environement has nothing to do with the other. DC is flush with "intelligent" people --intelligent in one sense or another. You think the actuaries over at the Social Security Administration are high school dropouts?
Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter are two of the most cerebally enhanced POTUS' weve ever had, and they were both failed presidencies.
And, Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower were two POTUS' of simply average ciphering skills. And, they had two of the most sucessful administrations, ever.
Presidents don't succeed by "immersing themselves in data". If anything that gets them bogged down.
Jimmy Carter is very famous (as was Bill Clinton) about obcessing about every dotted "i" and every crossed "t". And, the details consumed valuable time. (With Clinton, obviously not all of his time.)
How D.C. works is through people with "political intelligence". People who are wiley and know how to reach the people better than the other side does. That is why Huckabee was such a successful Governor and why Mitt was largely a bust.
|
|
Lori writes: 'I see McCain delegating to him ...a program to help states get more citizens to obtain health insurance having learned from the test program in Massachusetts.'
ME: Romneycare is an abyssmal failure. Its a big part of why Romney's Governorship was largely a bust.
|
|
|
Who cares? Ever hear of the late 1970 N.Y. Yankees? Sometimes the best stuff comes from a relationship that is in conflict. |
|
Rip's Flagon writes: 'Don't like eachother
Who cares?'
ME: Its not just likability. More importantly, I don't think McCain respects Mitt, either. I think he thinks Mitt is poser, a panderer, and uh... well, a pu$$y.
Notice Steyn on NRO:
'This problem is entirely of Romney's making. He needed a Mister-Moderator-I'm-paying-for-this-microphone moment, and every time McCain offered him one, with some contemptuous snarl in his direction, Mitt would put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger expression and say prissily that he wasn't going to descend to personal attacks.
It's never good to play to your caricature, and Mitt's caricature (as Kathryn well knows) is that he's an insipid technocrat Ken doll propped up by a lavishly funded campaign.
I mentioned a day or two back the Powerline post about McCain's willingness to knee his opponents in their privates. By just taking it, debate after debate, Mitt gave the impression that, like Ken, he didn't even have private parts to be kneed in.
...at some point Mitt needed... ...to get indignant and clobber McCain back, live on TV.
Iowa and New Hampshire are gone: there's no more retail politics. It's TV image now, and the image of Mitt - not the answers, not the command of policy, but something more basic - has led many Republicans to conclude there's something missing.
To return to what I said about playing to caricature, most of us know very little about Mormonism. To the general populace, the word conjures two enduring stereotypes: old-time bearded patriarchs with multiple brides, or Donny and Marie.
Romney very obviously wasn't the former, and so he wound up getting dismissed as some obscure ninth Osmond brother, too nice to slug it out with the gangsta death-metal crowd. The campaign should have understood this and nailed it well before NH.' |
|
K.G.:
After reading up on Crist, I don't think McCain will pick him. Crist's chronic bachelor-hood would be an issue, always fighting rumors of his being gay or a womanizer. According to the article at the PalmBeachPost, Crist has been engaged four times, so getting engaged doesn't seem to "work out for him". Some believe if he's chosen and McCain looses, the wedding will fall through the cracks. I was surprised to read that Crist has been married--briefly back in 1979. Briefly would be the operative word here, I think.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/ 2008/07/09/c1a_crist_0709.html
Regarding his girl friend, Carole Rome, what I had read about her currently being married to someone else is not true as I had assumed would be the case. Her divorce was finalized this year.
Romney is still by FAR THE VERY BEST CHOICE--we just gotta wait to see if McCain is smart enough to realize that. Fingers crossed and lots of prayers. |
|
"Mitt totally overshadows Mack in every way."
Except in the actual number of votes cast.
And, since being a successful businessman makes Romney an expert on the economy, McCain should pick other wildly successful businessmen to be on his cabinet. Like Michael Bloomberg. And Ted Turner. And George Soros. I bet those guys know a lot about the economy, because they are so successful at business. |
|
|
They're crazy-talking, saying like Reagan was not that smart and Romney's time as gov was a largely a bust. We should go easy on them, they're desperate. The train is leaving the station without them, without their Chuckles! Shoot, I guess that miracle thing didn't work out too well, huh? |
|
PC writes: 'We need to let cav and Pro down gently They're crazy-talking, saying like Reagan was not that smart and Romney's time as gov was a largely a bust.'
ME: I didn't say Reagan wasn't smart. I said he was of average intelligence. But, he was "smart".
He knew how the world worked and knew how to work it. But, I doubt if he could keep up with Romney with solving a sheet of accounting problems.
But, he didn't have to. He knew the gov't hires accountants for all its departements and the POTUS doesn't need to be one. (McCain knows this two, and so maybe he'll consider Mitt for a job at SSA or OMB)
Jimmy Carter received training in nuclear reactor power in his quest to be nuclear sub commander. He had great difficulty in letting others work on the details. He thought he needed to solve every problem.
Reagan had no interest in such details. Neither does George W. Bush. They understand a POTUS is a visionary, not a technician.
PC writes: 'The train is leaving the station without them, without their Chuckles!'
ME: I don't expect McCain to pick Huckabee. I haven't ever "expected" that. I'm not quite sure if he respects Huckabee, either.
But, in Huck's favor I do think McCain likes him. That gives a Huck one edge over Romney. Because, I suspect that McCain neither likes nor respects Romney. |
|
Pro:"I think he thinks Mitt is poser, a panderer, and uh... well, a pu$$y."
Spoken like a "Christian Leader" supporter.
Real classy.
Anyone who is familiar with TH commenters knows what to expect from Huck supporters when it comes to Mitt Romney. When you can't argue policy and Huck's record, divert the issues and make it about Mormons, just like Huck did in Iowa. When you can't argue policy like a grown up, revert to name calling.
It's what Jesus would want.
By the way, as the only candidate with a theology degree on the stage which part of sticking a flagpole up someons's butt is Biblical? Is it done for punishment or for pleasure? Huck clearly isn't being devisve at all as he panders to neoconfederatism. Uh-huh.
You Huck supporters do realize that we are the party of Lincoln, right?
Huckabee and Huck supporters,stop all the religious piety, it's getting rediculous to the point of absurdity and everyone of the party of Lincoln (those loyal to the union)can see it.
|
|
Read the Steyn criticism, then imagine what McCain would think. McCain is a salty sailor, that was meant to be in McCain's voice.
McCain sees himself as a John Wayne type. Likely he sees Mitt like the "Howard Sprague" charcater on Andy Griffith show. |
|
|
I'm a Mormon and a Romney supporter, but when I saw Pro's comment I didn't equate it with another attack on Mitt's religion. It was the same type of thing that many said about John "Silky Pony" Edwards - whose religion was not an issue. We lose credibility when every attack on a Mormon (for whatever reason) becomes an attack on all Mormons. The comment was pretty crude, but I didn't take it as being religious. |
|
You can speculate all day on what John McCain thinks of Mitt Romney. Why don't you include in your prognasting of McCain's thoughts, his comments of Romney post primaries? Instead of saying what you think McCain would say, say what he does say, or man up to your own ideas.
Pro: "I'm not quite sure if he respects Huckabee, either.But, in Huck's favor I do think McCain likes him."
If their is an explantion to this mystery I'd be interested to see it. |
|
There is a history here on TH of Pro, Eddie too, and JoeB131 and their attempts to to deride Mormonism first, then talk of politics.
Hambones: "We lose credibility when every attack on a Mormon (for whatever reason) becomes an attack on all Mormons."
Mitt Romney is a special case, as all Mormons are being attacked simply because he is Mormon who is currently in the media.
Calling a mormon unfit for president for simply being a mormon for 3 months and then calling him a vagina while claiming he was only reading John McCain's thoughts is totally not cool.
My comment is addressed to Pro and Mormon bashers who continue to berate Romney on the sole basis of his "wacky" beliefs.
If it was ever about policy, which it hasn't been, and you can feel free to look around TH, Mitt can stand up for his own record, I will not do it for him.
I do not however condone those who use Romney in their efforts to ridicule Mormonism.
|
|
...and Steyn has a point, in my opinion. Who knows why Mack has (had?) disrespect for Mitt? Maybe Steyn's analysis is correct.
First of all, we are all "missing something." I'm a Mitt supporter, but my first impression was Mitty is pretty not gritty. I admit that's more mean than clever, but there's an element of truth that Steyn nails. Mitt is not a man's man, scrappy street fighter.
On the other hand, Mitt on Hannity several days ago was sound, confident, smart, articulate. You can't deny he's a good communicator, and one of the greatest weakness of both Bush and Mack is their inability to communicate and therefore lead the people effectively by making their case for their vision (should they have one.)
PS: Very refreshing that people here are discussing Mitt and VP possibilities and this thread hasn't degenerated in a bunch of Mormon-bashing. Been there/done that on that infamous 700-post thread. It gets us nowhere.
We're making progress.
|
|
Big G writes: Wednesday, July, 16, 2008 1:07 PM
"Huck supporters and Mormon bashers alike
Pro:"I think he thinks Mitt is poser, a panderer, and uh... well, a pu$$y."
Spoken like a "Christian Leader" supporter.
Real classy.
Anyone who is familiar with TH commenters knows what to expect from Huck supporters when it comes to Mitt Romney. When you can't argue policy and Huck's record, divert the issues and make it about Mormons, just like Huck did in Iowa. When you can't argue policy like a grown up, revert to name calling.
It's what Jesus would want.
By the way, as the only candidate with a theology degree on the stage which part of sticking a flagpole up someons's butt is Biblical? Is it done for punishment or for pleasure? Huck clearly isn't being devisve at all as he panders to neoconfederatism. Uh-huh."
===============================================
Big G....Great post!!! Yeah, Huckabee and his followers are waaaay classy!
|
|
|
Huck did not finish is theology degree. He quit to become a TV preacher. He lied about completing the degree. He's had to backtrack on that one. |
|
The "Christian" candidate:
Gov. Huckabee was easy on rapists and felons, including convicted rapist Wayne Dumond, who raped and killed another woman shortly after his release from prison.
Huckabee commuted or pardoned over 669 prisoners, including 12 murderers --10 times as many as Bill Clinton did over 9 years.
http://www.realchange.org/huckabee.htm
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list- washington-s-ten-MOST-WANTED-CORRUPT-POLITICIANS-2007
Huckabee #6
His son tortured a dog to death and Huckabee hindered the animal cruelty investigation.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241
"Huckabee's personality has been described in negative terms as "petty, thin-skinned, self-righteous, and "somewhat vindictive"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee
Google "Huckabee" and "Obama assassination joke"
Also Google "Huckabee" and "Honky Tonk Woman". Some websites include the lyrics to this song--about getting drunk in a bar and having sex with a hooker. Now that's some good Christian music....
|
|
I do not know of any videos of Rep. Steve King. I know of him from his congressional website and positions he has taken in the past.
He is very conservative. He was a small business owner. He has a good grasp of economics and politics. |
|
to be obsessed with religion. Perhaps if they tried a little harder to be objective they could get off the religion kick. |
|
Is this the same guy who writes horror books?
Otherwise, total unknown, unless your grasping at straws. |
|
|
You are out of your mind. You are the one that brings up religion. Look through the thread. The Mormons NEVER bring religion up unless provoked by the low life morons that sit in the dark corners of their basement. |
|
were obsessed(possessed?).
But when attacked, we will try to set the record straight.
So just stick to judging the candidates on their merits and their electability, we'll get along fine. I agree. People should be able to objectively discuss a candidate's weaknesses and strengths without it degenerating into a bash on that person's faith. Or being taken as a bash.
|
|
Do you think anyone believes you when you try to reduce Romney's abilities down to accounting?
Eveyone knows what makes Romney successful is that he possesses the incredibly rare combination of super-intelligence, work ethic, leadership and character. He didn't get where he is by being good with numbers, Pro. But nice try!
And I doubt anyone but you believes Reagan was of average intelligence. Did you ever hear about Reagan's writing? He was a prolific and perfect writer, always getting it right on the first go, never needing to scratch out or edit. I don't see how you could listen or read one of his speeches and say that he was only average IQ. Or even know of his accomplishments. Average men don't do the things Reagan did.
You know what, Pro? The more I read your words, the more I realize you are probably not a republican. Remember how the dems always wanted to reduce Reagan down to being the amiable dunce. You sound like them, what a shame. |
|
|
|
Strong on border and immigration law enforcement, not going to be picked by Sen. Stick-in-the-eye.
I see the religious wars continue! |
|
What makes you think McCain likes Huck? I don't see any evidence for that - in fact, the opposite. Huck was never anything more than a useful idiot for McCain. He used him and promptly and understandably dumped him asap. Isn't using him now, they aren't chummy.
But, he is pretty chummy with Romney. I think another difference is that McCain respects Romney, but I doubt if he has any respect for the Huckster. One thing McCain is pretty clear on is that he does not tolerate "agents of intolerance" very well. That counts Huck out. |
|
QM7: 'Huck did not finish is theology degree.'
ME: Mike Huckabee has a B.A. in religion (and
communications), therefore he is degreed.
He is degreed in what is sometimes referred to as "practical theology", viz., the proper way man practices theology, i.e. relates to God.
He augmented that degree with a year of graduate school, where he would've studied general Christian theology, church history, elementary Greek and various practical courses.
QM7: 'He quit to become a TV preacher.'
ME: Actually he quit to become a media advisor/communications director. |
|
have you noticed that whenever a name other than Romney is suggested as a possible VP choice, there comes out of many Romney supporters on TH blogs a constant course of negative comments. That is a technique they picked up from Romney's TV ads. |
|
Your the one foot loose on facts. Huck does indeed have his 'communications' degree. he DOES NOT have a degree in theology. He dropped out of that school, to become a TV preacher. He has had to backtrack on that one. Sorry, resume padding is not acceptable in my world.
|
|
The second comming happend (huck) and we the people were too blind to notice.
Hey, gotta go. Mitt on Sean Hannity's raido show in a tick. |
|
do not feel bad, a lot of people missed the First Coming too!!! |
|
Big G writes: 'Pro, You can speculate all day on what John McCain thinks of Mitt Romney.'
ME: Thank you.
Anyway, since it is quite a subject of frequent pieces of journalism, for example, recently:
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/problem-v-p-romney
I don't think that it is all that odd that I should do it.
And, this isn't new since these pieces have been coming along for awhile:
"John McCain hates Mitt Romney"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/05/mccain/print.h tml
Big G writes: 'Why don't you include in your prognasting of McCain's thoughts, his comments of Romney post primaries?'
ME: Because, those words would have to be said no matter what.
McCain wants to win, and publically bashing Romney after McCain had the delegates to be nominated would not help him in his quest. He did the same public show after 2000 for Dubya.
As to Huckabee, like Romney, Huck didn't serve in the military, and chose a softer profession. Huck was a little on young side for Vietnam (though not totally) but Romney and George W. Bush were the right age but avoided it in one fashion or another. |
|
Will not confirm or deny that he is being vetted. He refered Sean Hannity on to McCain campaign to discuss any 'vetting' going on.
Hummm. One can only hope that it is him. He's the best and brightest on the horizion. Period. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'Huck does indeed have his 'communications' degree. he DOES NOT have a degree in theology.'
ME: Communications AND "religion", or it might be "religion" and communications. Its not yet clear to me whether that was double-major, or, a major and minor.
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'He dropped out of that school, to become a TV preacher.'
ME: Nope. He dropped out of Seminary to become a media advisor/communications director for a TV preacher. This guy:
"James Robison"
http://www.jamesrobison.org
Robison (or some of his assoicates) felt that Robison needed a less edgy TV presentation. Huckabee was brought in to help with that. |
|
|
of hearing how McCain 'hates' Romney and vice versa. i guess two adults can't bury the hatchet and move on? I think they may not be kissing friends, but they do have a professional respect for one another. If you can't bury the hatchet and move on - well you'lljust get your own TV show on fox. |
|
I sugtest a bit of research. One is not granted a degree when one drops out. Period.
Now, we can aruge this all day to tuesday, I'm right your wrong and your just making facts up to make your guy better in your eyes. That's OK. He's not being considered. I'm fine with that. I'm fine that he'll be on Fox. I can turn him off. I'm fine with whatever he does in his petty life, so long as it is not helping make decisions that effect my life.
He dropped out. He did get his communiations degree. that he did. But he DID NOT finish his degree. in 'theology'. Although I've often wondered why one needs a degree to preach, but that's only my wonderment. |
|
|
|
|
|
none of those 'on the list' are saying they are being vetted.
Except Huck, who signed a multi-year contract with Fox. Normally, you don't sign contracts if the big job is heading your way.
Oh, and did you pull up that article yet? Fact checking. There are more. You want them? |
|
Let me down easily? The big difference between you and me is that I would vote for a McCain/Romney ticket, while you have admitted that you would not even vote for a hypothetical Romney/Huckabee ticket (you said that it would show that Romney is not as smart as you thought). So you don't need to let me down easily. I am, however, entitled to state my opinion that Romney is not the economic messiah that you Mittwits keep claiming he is.
Anyway, McCain's demure protestations to the contrary, he has shown he knows economics quite well: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjAwOWQzODQzNjMyMGYwZ WNjNzQ3NDhjNjliNmQzOTY=
Great McCain Line: "I have a cup of ethanol every morning for breakfast, but that doesn't mean I think we should subsidize the stuff". And McCain has given a much better defense of plain old Free Trade than Mitt "Free Trade as long as it's Fair Trade" Romney.
Another thing, pointed out by Larry Kudlow, is that McCain has abandoned his "Cap and Trade" idea. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzRkNzVlYWMzNjY2O TExNDRkNmI1YmUxYjFjZGJmZjM= |
|
...leads me to believe he is not on the list. Whatever Huck's strong points, once the narrative got out there that he had released a murderer-rapist because Huck was convinced the guy was born again, it was over for Huck.
The story may not be exactly true, but that's all the voters in the general would need to hear: that Huck made (bad) decisions based on religious convictions.
Hannity today saying that Mitt is on the top of the list, "nobody even close." It was funny because Hannity was quoting articles saying Mitt was totally "combative" in compaigning for Mack.
So, it could be true when Mack says Mitt's doing a better job campaigning for him than that Mitt did for himself.
Anyway, Mitt sounds solid, sure, and reassuring. This, in itself, is good for the country. Lack of confidence in economy is part of the problem.
It all comes down to this: the uber-cons in the media continue to support Mitt so the whine that Mitt isn't (wasn't) sufficiently conservative doesn't hold water.
The uber-fundies in the hinderlands that can't vote for a Mormon cannot point to anything re: Mormonism per se that precludes a person from serving in government.
I suspect Mack will wait until the day after Denver to announce his VP. Steal some Dem thunder.
|
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'Theology degree?
Campaign had to backtrack on that 'fact'.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59 222'
ME: Well, I guess you'll have to backtrack. The article admits he did go to work for James Robison.
Are YOU still denying he worked for Robison?
The article does have at least one error.
It says "at Ouachita Baptist University ...he majored in speech and communications".
That is a non_sensical. Speech is a sub_discipline of "communications". He majored in communications and RELIGION.
He "backtracked" because people evidently got the impression that he had a "graduate" degree. Which he never said he did, as far as I know. He simply said he had a degree, which he does.
Ronald Reagan was degreed in economics, as is George H.W. Bush, Phil Graham and Dick Armey.
Reagan and Bush have B.A.s, and Graham and Armey have PhDs. Nevertheless, all four are degreed in economics. |
|
KG writes: 'Huck's Fox News Contract...
...leads me to believe he is not on the list.'
ME: All such contracts have escape clauses.
KG writes: 'Whatever Huck's strong points...'
ME: You think he has some? I'd be interested to read your serious take (and everyone's) why evangelicals went for Huck (an asterisk before the Iowa straw poll) instead of:
Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo all solid right-wing SoCons which were sharing the bottom tier with Huck most of last year. |
|
agree, but maybe the second day after the end of the Dem convention. Also, I would most like to see the ticket be McCain-Steele '08. Has the sound of a winner I think. |
|
you shouldn't have said everyone's.
I think some of Huckabee's strong points include his ability to connect with ordinary people. By ordinary, I mean people who are happy to have a home, a family they can support, enough money to pay the bills and the hope to be able to support themselves in their senior years.
Another strong point is his strong love of Jesus Christ.
Still another strong point is his 10 years of experience as a chief executive of a large government unit.
Among many strong points I include his consistent support of protecting all innocent human beings from the time of their conception to the time of their natural death.
Continuing with strong points I suggest you review his positions on Second Amendment rights.
How about this for a strong point? Huckabee believes marriage is rightly restricted to one man with one woman.
A final strong point before I quit. Governor Huckabee supports the Fair Tax because he understands that it is stupid to tax productivity as we currently do with the income tax.
|
|
people who would hold Governor Huckabee's religion against him are planning to vote for Obama anyway. |
|
|
Hellow? I have a degree. If I quit school, shy of my masters, and went to work in the field I was taking my masters in, does NOT make me have a masters. Now, it makes no hill of beans to me if Huck is a dropout or not. If you want to think he has a degree in Theology, when he does not, then knock yourself out. I have said he does have his BA. BUT, like Obama, he pads his resume just a tad, wouldent you say? |
|
...holding his religion against him, but the fact that it appears (at least to voters) that Huck released at least that one guy (how soon we forget) because Huck believed the guy had been "born again." Religion played a role in Huck's fateful decision.
I'm happy to vote for a SBC (unless they've been publically anti-Mormon or anti-Catholic) or any religion unless there is evidence their beliefs are clouding their judgment.
I realize it's a two-edged sword. People who vote against same-sex marriage and abortion are generally religiously motivated. People who are kind and honest may be religiously motivated.
I'm happy to vote for your guy King, Steele, Hunter, Palin, Jindal et al if that's who Mack chooses. I don't know any deal-breakers against them. It appears Huck's religion clouded his judgment. Or at least the voters would zonk him because of it.
Part of Huck's problem is he's a loose and spontaneous good-old-boy who does connect with people. Great for retail politics. Good for evangelical politics. Good for a pulpit or a talk show. But on the world stage, he's parochial--and his spontaneous humor would get him in trouble in our PC world.
I think he has another calling.
|
|
None that eddie lists are very serious contendters or brings much to the table as Mitt Romney does. I think Eddie is grasping at anyone NOT mormon. What will he do if McCain picks someone who during the campaing converts to mormonism? It's possible.
But then, I see Crist running to the alter. Wonder what that's all about? |
|
Akennas: 'Where I came in conflict with Huck was when it seemed he was using religious prejudice as a wedge to get ahead.'
ME: It is very difficult to sift the multi-directional currents this season.
But, I would like to suggest Huckabee's thrust was bigger than Romney.
All last year Rudy polls, Mitt had the money, Fred had the myth, and McCain was the heir apparent.
For many years, SoCons have been disappointed and frustrated. They appreciate Reagan and Dubya.
But, when it gets down to it what Reagan actually did wasn't much. And, with Bush41, and Dole we had not all that much talk, and little action.
What actions we have gotten from Republicans have been mostly symbolic, tokenism, and defensive. That is, they are doing a cya with religious conservatives for the next election --which I think is what explains McCain's "pro-life record" and Romney's conversion.
Huckabee knew he wouldn't break through that pack with a conventional campaign. He didn't have name I.D., he hadn't ran before, he'd never been in front of the Washington cameras, he didn't have big money, or political connections to establishment poohbahs.
So, Huckabee devised a strategy that essentially said, "NONE of these guys are the real deal." They won't give you any more than past POTUS', and they won't even talk to you any more than can be helped.
But, Huck says, I won't come to you with words to simply pacify you. I'll remind you I'm among those who are disppointed with Republicans, so I share your frustration. I am one of you!
To paraphrase Toby Keith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL9H3y1xfdM
'[We] w[ere] getting kinda tired
Of [t]her[e] endless chatter
Nothing [we] [we']d say
Ever seemed to matter
So [we] took a little [break]
Just to clear [our] heads
[And, we] saw [Huckabee past the talking heads]
[He] looked like a [candidate]
To [work for] satisfaction
With a little [bolder] talk
And a lot more action' |
|
Well, I am ordinary as you defined it, and Huck appalled me. Sorry, no connection.
Romney - strong love of Jesus Christ,
Romney - Very successful years as CEO, Olympic savior, and Governor.
Romney: abortion - check, 2nd Amendment - check, traditional marriage - check, the right tax policy - check, and a lot more.
Romney seems to be the man of the hour - the one with the most to offer McCain. Qweenmum is right, Huck is a loose cannon - ill-suited for the national spotlight. Loose lips sink ships. The assassinate Obama joke sealed his fate. |
|
Sheesh! Pro!
"But, when it gets down to it what Reagan actually did wasn't much."
Who are you rip van winkle?
Yeah, winning the cold war without firing a shot, righting the economic ship after Carter, lowering our tax burden and inspiring millions of Americans to remember that America IS that shining city on a hill with a mission and destiny, was "not much"!
Now I know for sure Pro, that you are NOT a conservative, probably not a republican, and perhaps not even a man who understands your country very well. But you sure are fixated on what religion your pres is.
Kind of like the folks Jesus talked about who had eyes but would not see, and ears, but would not hear.
Pro, seriously, get a clue. |
|
Mike Huckabee never said he had a "masters", nor any other graduate degree.
He simply said, he had a theology degree.
Some might think that is a padding of his religion major at the Bachelor's level, but then again he has year of graduate school. So, he is educated beyond what his peers with B.A.s were.
Ronald Reagan and Bush41 both have said they had/have degrees in ecomomics, both only have B.A.s; were they lying about having degrees? |
|
|
|
I quite agree that Mitt brings the most to the table. It appears everyone in the media and the powers that be are pulling for Mitt. It appears the Mormon thing is completely irrelevant in eyes of the smart money.
Like Hannity says: No one is even close to Mitt. Hannity himself has endorsed Mitt. But Mack won the primary. He gets to pick.
The only pick that would annoy me is Huck. He's not a straight-shooter. He used anti-Mormonism in a cyncial, lying way. A stand-up Christian leader would have been right there along side of Mitt in his Faith in America speech, and in the tradition of JFK at Brandenburg Gate, said, "I am a Mormon." They all should have, including the Dems. But especially a Christian leader.
|
|
I was referring that Reagan didn't do much to end the abortion holocaust.
I think Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th century, and in the top five of all. |
|
|
They both have B.A. degrees in economics, what's the problem? a B.A. is a degree. |
|
On Romney for the past month or so, and more particularly the last 2 weeks. Saying little positve things, dropping hints.
So far, so good. From what I read, most everyone is on board and agreed. Full steam ahead, Romney is going to make A LOT of conservatives very happy. |
|
PC writes: 'Hucks strong points'
.'
ME: Bzzzt. The question was a serious question. You traffic in anti_Huck vitriol all day; everyday. Please take a break. You aren't contributing anything useful to my question. Next caller, please....
|
|
Romney's pro-life conversion was a cya?
Gosh, Pro, you are one confused individual. Just because you pal does a lot of CYA's, you should not project that kind of mentality onto the other candidates. The difference is that Romney had a very good reason to promise not to mess with abortion law in Mass, and he's explained his change very honestly and believably. Whereas with Huck's many changing positons ( taxes, amnesty, crime, defense, big gov) he not only doesn't explain them, he won't even acknowledge them. THAT is a CYA. |
|
PC writes: 'what's the problem? a B.A. is a degree.'
ME: I agree. Glad we can agree on something. QM7 says B.A.s aren't degrees.
|
|
|
Huck probably has about as many strong points as Al Sharpton, Rev. Wright, and David Duke. There may be some in there somewhere (?), but the reality is that Huck has so many character flaws, such a bad record, and used such sleezy tactics, that we could never see anything beyond horrible. |
|
She said Huck dropped out of the seminary, which he did - he does NOT have a theology degree, but apparently a BA in religion, with a minor in Comm.
From what I understand, religion and theology are not interchangable, and the term theology is associated with a post graduate degree.
In one of the debates, Huck did claim to have a theology degree, and later had to clarify/backtrack. I will give you that it was kind of a slip of the tongue.
|
|
PC writes: 'Romney's pro-life conversion was a cya?
ME: Yes, Romney became "officially" pro life in July of 2005, just three short years ago (though he was still struggling with that identity even after that) in the 58th year of his life.
That is a full 32 and 1/2 years after Roe v. Wade -- long enough for most people to figure out where they stood.
And, even if it was heartfelt there was nothing believable about his conversion.
Note NRO's Rich Lowry:
'...His account of how he came to change his view on abortion—through the issue of stem-cell research—isn't very compelling and he would probably be better off not talking about it at all. Fairly or not, people aren't going to believe it...' |
|
...that he would work to overturn Roe and send abortion laws back to the states where they belong.
He's come out boldly for the Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.
This makes total sense. Different abortion laws in different states do not create chaos between the states. Different marriage laws are creating all kinds of chaos as we speak.
Mitt's gone on record loud and clear. Like all observant Mormons he has declared Jesus Christ to be God the Son and his Lord and Savior. Obviously Mitt and his family are serious about living as Christians.
He's gone on record as supporting the 2nd Amendment. So what if he hasn't been 100% in your camp all his born days. Most people believe it's sincere.
At this point, he's not flipping back. Be glad you made a convert.
Maybe you'd like someone else. But if it's Mitt, at least you have a fellow traveler in office. That's huge. |
|
K.G. writes: 'Look: Mitt's Come Out and Boldly Said......that he would work to overturn Roe and send abortion laws back to the states where they belong.'
ME: Actually he has been all over the lot.
He still doesn't know where he stands. At one point he favored the HLA, and backed away from that in favor of the states rights position.
Huckabee is for the personhood consitutional amendment. The FULL pro-life position. He is the only top tier candidate that was/is, that I know of.
K.G. writes: 'He's come out boldly for the Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.'
ME: That is good.
But, some feel he could have done more in Mass. That he wouldn't go to the fullest use of his office to stop same-sex marriage. And, also he supports domestic partnership benefits and ENDA, which undermines his claim to be the crusader on this issue that he poses to be.
What do you make of this?:
'...The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage in Massachusetts, it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step, until he finally talked himself into doing nothing, or nothing much...'
Have you read this link?:
http://www.nationalreview.com/arkes/arkes200405170901.asp |
|
Romney is not all over the lot on abortion. He's made it perfectly clear that he wants to overturn Roe, send it back to the states and work toward the Human Life Amendment. And pro-life leaders agree there really is no other way to go about it.
The old charge that Romney could have stopped gay marriage in Mass is silly beyond belief and the only people talking that way are die hard, pastor-in-chief, Huck supporters. Conservatives in Mass and everywhere know that Romney took every measure available to him to prevent it, had no reason not to, BTW, because he has ALWAYS opposed gay marriage. You guys also conveniently "forget" that he went to congress to urge the passage of a trditional marriage amendment, which McCain opposed. I DON'T ever hear you complaining about that, Pro.
2nd Amendment: Romney's only experience with it was when he signed the assault weapons ban which voters and the legislature overwhelmingly supported and the NRA called it a "net gain" for 2nd amendment rights. David Keene, NRA vice-pres and soon-to-be pres wholeheartedly endorsed Romney in the primary. |
|
An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
January 11, 2007
Dear conservative friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.
Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:
• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”
|
|
Worked hard to overturn “same-sex marriage” in the Commonwealth with considerable progress to date. In 2004 he lobbied hard, before a very hostile legislature, for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – an amendment later changed by the legislature to include civil unions, which the Governor and many marriage amendment supporters opposed. Working with the Governor, we were successful in defeating this amendment.
• Provided active support for a successful citizen petition drive in 2005 to advance a clean constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
• Rallied thousands of citizens to focus public and media attention on the failure of legislators, through repeated delays, to perform their constitutional obligation and vote on the marriage amendment.
• Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. That lawsuit, perhaps more than any other single action, was by all accounts instrumental in bringing pressure on the legislators to vote. The vote ultimately was taken on January 2, 2007 and won legislative support – clearing a major hurdle in the three year effort to restore traditional marriage in the Commonwealth.
|
|
? Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney’s leadership, Massachusetts’ public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, “I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice.”
? Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the socalled “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”
? Stood for religious freedom. Last year, Governor Romney was stalwart in defense of the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children in its care. Catholic Charities was loudly accused of “discrimination,” but Governor Romney correctly pointed out that it is unjust to force a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to placate a special-interest group.
? Filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Massachusetts legislature to save Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from being forced to violate their moral principles or stop doing important charitable work.
|
|
All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that “a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment.”
We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion. While they are, taken by themselves, obviously worrisome to social conservatives including ourselves, they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now – and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts.
Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed – not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them.
For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues – whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us. |
|
It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 – to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced “gay marriage” upon our Commonwealth.
For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.
Sincerely,
Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts
Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus
Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute
Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England
James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development
Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage
|
|
And I believe the men and women on the ground on Mass. The facts are there, it is simply another case where your eyes won't see and your ears won't hear.
What do you make of their testimony? |
|
I believe has amply demonstrated her devotion to Romney. Please do not waste your time questioning her objectivity. It is beyond questioning. As she as said so many times, only a fool would question the record, qualifications, and character of Mitt Romney. Truly her objectivity is beyond question!!!!! |
|
[Joe on July 15, 2008 10:43 AM]"it is not moronic to pick Romney if Romney is presented as the economic ying to Mac's national defense yang.
Romney's strength is being a business oriented policy wonk."
[Joe on June 30, 2008 11:41 AM]"I like Romney as VP
So long as it is not just Romney as VP, but Romney as part of the McCain-Romney economic team."
What do you think of the flat tax?
Romney: flat tax "a TAX CUT for FAT CATS!"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg /325636c3abbc6985
[Joe on June 16, 2008 9:49 AM]"I actually like Mitt (if he is sold as the economics guy of the team)"
[Joe on June 10, 2008 8:39 PM]"I like Mitt if Team McCain portrays him as the economic go to guy."
Do you think Romney handled the MA economy well?
Do you think McCain needs to shore up his levels of support among social conservatives?
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.
/////////////////////////////////////////
Murdock, Deroy. 14 January 2008. "Mitt's Mythical 'Mass. Miracle'"
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12568
disgusting Romney
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=11056
Romney hit hard on MSNBC -Taxes, Flip-flops, & Social Issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bSyAihn18
SCM employees on Romney's job-cutting
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/30/these-ads-kept-mit t-romne_n_49954.html
|
|
|
What do you think of the Mass leaders claims about Romney? |
|
PC writes: 'He and his staff identified and enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples.'
ME: That was fine, and somewhat shrewd. But, the counter-criticism is that local clerks are simply going to ignore the order and peform a don't ask; don't tell principle with regard to residency.
PC writes: "Filed suit before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Governor’s suit asked the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote and failing that, to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot."
ME: Mr Arkes said that this was mistake, because... because it yielded to the premise that the Supreme Court was within its authority in its initial declaration.
And that, Gov. Romney should have ordered that the Court should be ignored because it overstepped its constitutional authority. It had NO RIGHT to make such a declaration and to stick its meddling nose in where it didn't belong.
IOW, Gov Romney should have had a constitutional showdown with the Mass. Supreme Court.
What I make of the letter otherwise is that he did what he could on variety of issues which are of concern to religious conservatives. But, the criticism offered by Mr. Arkes is about the narrow issue of same-sex marriage. |
|
|
And the anti- drivil continues at his/her/it's fingers. |
|
|
You know I did not say that. I did agree he had a BA. BUT he claimed to have a degree in THEOLOGY, not religious communications. He DROPPPED OUT of his masters program, then in a debate, said he had that fancy degree, when in fact, he DID NOT. But, heck, believe he walks on water if you wish. I actaully know the difference of FInnishing a degree as opposed to not finnishing one. At least at BYU, if you did not complete the course work, you did not get the degree. What standards the schools huck went to, who knows? The ones I went to required the COMPLETION of coursework. Huckabee even said he did not finish and misspoke. Don't take it so personally. He dropped out of this advanced degree class. Whoppie. But don't say you've got the masters in Theology, when you don't. That in my book is called a 'lie'. |
|
That Romney should have had a constitutional showdown with the SC. Rational folks realize he did everything he could, within his power as Governor.
I'm willing to bet that if these where Huck's actions, you wouldn't say Huck should have called for absolute chaos in Mass. You would be defending him. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'in a debate, said he had that fancy degree...'
ME: He never said he had a "fancy degree".
Qweenmumof7 writes: '...don't say you've got the masters in Theology, when you don't.'
ME: He never said he had a "Masters", JUST a "degree".
Coulda been an: AA, AS, AAS, BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, MDiv, MRE, MTh, PhD, ThD, Dmin, JD, DD, DLitt, etc. yada, yada, yada,
He never specified. When people started PRESUMING it was graduate degree, he had to clarify. |
|
He said during a debate that he was the only one on stage who had a "theology degree". His words. He doesn't, and he later had to admit it.
Is that clear enough for you, Pro? Why are you stuck on this? |
|
PC writes: 'Pro - very few people agree with you
That Romney should have had a constitutional showdown with the SC. Rational folks realize he did everything he could, within his power as Governor.'
ME: The National Review editors thought this essay rational enough to be printed under their name:
http://www.nationalreview.com/arkes/arkes200405170901.asp
Have you read it yet? |
|
Your parsing words. Huck said he had a degree in theology. He did not. He had to backtrack on that statement. He lied.
Now, your command of the facts are quite selective. Mine are based on resarch. I gave you the BA. But there is no flipping way he has a degree in THEOLOGY, which even he says, he regregts completing. HE DROPPED OUT. Now, unless the Seminary gave him the degree just for kicks and giggles, eventhough he did not COMPLETE the course work (as he has said he did not do, when he backtracked on his statements regarding his Theology degree), then I'll stand corrected. Meanwhile, your guy is on fox, and my guy is pretty close to second seat.
Oh, and on the other thread. Parnell is Lutheran, as near as I can learn. I had to go back and look it up, since you asked. What does his religion have to do with my giving him some $$? And Parnell is ahead in polls over Young and his bridge to the big nowhere. I would be voting for Romney even if he were SBC or Catholic, or anything else, so long as he returned the respect for the faith I practice. |
|
PC writes: 'Pro I know you didn't ask me, but
He said during a debate that he was the only one on stage who had a "theology degree".'
ME: I think that's true. Most of the panel were lawyers, and Romney a business/law grad. And, Ron Paul is an M.D. McCain graduated from the Naval academy.
So, I think Huck was the only one.
PC writes: 'His words. He doesn't, and he later had to admit it.'
ME: Ahh... the dispute then would be whether it was proper to call his "degree in religion" a "theology degree".
But that is an altogether different point than the matter him dropping out of seminary.
PC writes: 'Why are you stuck on this?'
ME: Because people, like QM7, attack Mike Huckabee on this point. |
|
|
I'm not attacking him. I'm stating fact. Your skin is just a tad too thin. I think Huck has some positive points. Just not in national politics. I'm sure he'll have a successful career in raido or TV. So long as he keeps out of Washington, and away from making any kind of law...we'll all get along fine. |
|
Huck does not have a theology degree for pete sake!
PC writes: 'Pro I know you didn't ask me, but
He said during a debate that he was the only one on stage who had a "theology degree".'
ME: I think that's true. Most of the panel were lawyers, and Romney a business/law grad. And, Ron Paul is an M.D. McCain graduated from the Naval academy.
So, I think Huck was the only one.
He has a BA in R E L I G I O N. Not Theology. To have that it must be an advanced degree, from what I understand.
Do you get it? |
|
PC: 'He has a BA in R E L I G I O N. Not Theology.'
ME: Religion, at Christian colleges, is essentially practical theology. It is the practicing of the knowledge (logos) of God (Theos).
PC: 'To have that it must be an advanced degree, from what I understand.'
ME: There are some colleges which offer a BTh --Bachelor's of Theology. Huckabee mispoke in a very technical sense when he said "theology".
It would be akin to someone who said they had a "Management" degree, when in fact they have a B.A. in Business Admin., which would be more generic encompassing some management, some accounting, some marketing, some business law, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Huck admitted that he doesn't have theology degree. |
|
PC writes: 'No technicalities, Pro Huck admitted that he doesn't have theology degree.'
ME: Sure its technical. He was basically saying well, ok ya got me, its not "theo-l-ogy", strictly speaking, it is "religion".
Obviously, he was originally using theology in a broad generic sense, and when challenged, he qualified.
This is one of those things which is so EASY to verify, that intentionally falsifying (if that's what you think it is) would be pointless.
Huckabee was simply flattering himself, I guess. Which, doesn't make any sense anyway. Because the same points could be made saying "religion degree".
This was really a point made by bored bloggers and a bored press about nothing.
Huck used a misnomer, like Romney's "Lifelong hunter" only not as hollow. |
|
"Huck used a misnomer, like Romney's "Lifelong hunter" only not as hollow."
Huck used the "misnomer" on more than one occasion, like this little gem.
In November, he told a producer for Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network that his religious background made him most qualified to lead the war on terror.
"In fact I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree." |
|
I don't see where this line is solving anything. I only corrected someone who said that he had a THEOLOGY degree. I did admit to his BA from another college. But he himself admitted the gaffe.
However, if you choose to believe he's more than he truly is, then your living in Kansas with ruby slippers. And the man behind the curtain is Huck. |
|
That's all it is. Typical trick. Facts get twisted and turned, until they can't be recognized anymore and a lie becomes a truth. Mr. Huckabee has stated that He DOES NOT have a degree in THEOLOGY. He said himself that HE DROPPPED OUT of Seminary to become a TV preacher.
Oh well. Twisted facts seems to be a fav pastime of some of you here on TV. I see Synth is back spewing his/her/it's hate back to the forefront. |
|
you ladies are certainly obsessed with religion and what a candidate's religion is. Of course there are Bachelor's degrees in theology. Certainly, a degree in religion is considered a degree in theology. Theology is the study of God, so is religion. You people are arguing semantics. |
|
All I'm saying is, when Huckabee said "I have degree in theology" he was referring to his B.A. in religion. Its that simple.
He was later acknowledging he probably shouldn't call the degree he HAS a "degree in theology", since the school has labeled it "religion".
There is a broader more general sense that a degree in religion is a degree in *practical theology*, viz., religion is the practicing of knowledge (logos) of God (Theos).
This is especially true at an evangelical Christian college where the focus of a degree in religion is more ministerial (and of necessity theological) in orientation, whereas a degree in religious studies at a state school is more sociological.
And, anyway, he could've made the **SAME** point had he said "I have a degree in religion".
That point (basically) was, he has a more sensitive ear to the mindset of devoted religious people than his more secular opponants, and therefore he would be more ready to understand the extreme committment of Islamo-fascists.
It is the argument that was made when the FBI and ATF stormed WACO and Ruby Ridge. The FBI was ignorant of the religious mindset, and so made many errors.
You make it a controversy where there really shouldn't have been one. |
|
We're (?) obsessed with what a candidate's religion is? You need to buy a mirror or a clue.
We are not arguing semantics about the words, we are saying Huck lied numerous times saying he ha a theology degree, when he didn't and he was forced to finally admit it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59 222
The words theology and religion are not interchangable, either. The study of each is different. Look it up. |
|
I'll grant you that theology and religion are not entirely interchangeable, but this is a pretty minor "lie" to worry about. As pro says, the point he was making IS the same with a religion or a theology degree.
I don't trust Huck either, but if this was all you had on his character it would be pretty weak. I supported Romney (and still do), but to be fair there were issues of similarly small magnitude with his campaign. Lifelong hunter (who had not hunted for several decades) and "seeing" his father march with Dr. King (his father marched for civil rights, but was not with MLK). |
|
you and qweenie rarely post without bringing up religion. You both are obsessed with it. |
|
|
Everyone in TH knows that it is you who is obsessed with Mormonism. The point about Huck was that he lied to pad his resume and was caught. |
|
I thought it was just a slip of the tongue once during a debate, but then I saw that he was saying it all over the place. He had to come out and make the correction.
You are right - it's not a big deal. Huck has much larger problems to deal with. |
|
..into religion is that Huck's degree/non degree was in religion/theology. That's the debate. If his degree had been in agronomy, we wouldn't be discssuing religion.
Huck made his campaign about religion. People like you guys who challenge Mitt's faith make the discussion about religion, not the Mormons, who are happy to leave religious discussions on religious threads. |
|
PC writes: 'I thought it was just a slip of the tongue once during a debate, but then I saw that he was saying it all over the place. He had to come out and make the correction.'
ME: No it wasn't slip of the tongue and neither was it concious thing after the first instance.
After it first entered his stump speech it became a fixed trope, thereafter. Surely you've listened to many stump speeches over the years.
They mostly all sound like broken record repeating the same 'ol slogans over and over:
change, change, change... trust but verify, trust but verify, Washington is broken, Washington is broken, I did not have sex with that woman.. oh that's something else. :o |
|
|
If Huck had a degree in agronomy the claim would've been that he was more attune to promoting a better farm bill, not appreciate the religious motivation behind islamofascism. |
|
...all Mormons want to do is talk about religions on this thread.
My point: It's Huck and you guys who bring religion to the discussion, both because Huck ran as a Christian leader who had a theo degree and understood the religious nature of the Islamic threat....
...and there are a bunch of people who wanted to make Mormonism an issue. Huck was happy to exploit that.
Both Mitt and other Mormons are happy to judge and be judged on character and capacity and leave religious discussions to more appropriate venues. |
|
|
If that was the case of him just using the wrong terms (as he's so famous for doing), they WHY did he have to backtrack and put out a thing that he had NOT completed his degree in theology? I have a degree in music. I play the violin. I would never say I have a degree sculping (as my cousin does), even though they are both degrees in the arts. But then, I know what type of 'art' I have a degree in. |
|
|
|