Thursday, December 06, 2007
|
|
Romney's --Objectively-- Great, Great Day
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:13 PM
|
Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored. There can be no objective argument against that conclusion. Why? Because Romney is running for the GOP nomination, and his remarks, both in delivery and substance, were lavishly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and James Dobson, not to mention Mark Steyn, Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -and these were just the seven people I heard on a long drive south to San Diego and then in a hotel room before leaving to post this and give a speech. I am sure when I get a chance to review the blogs more widely late tonight, there will be many others, though in fact every single one could denounce Romney and it wouldn't matter given the line-up of assessments just listed, to which I add mine from earlier today.
Here are seven of the most influential conservative commentators in the U.S., and their opinions on the Romney success are all aligned with mine. Thus, objectively, the speech cannot be judged as other than an extraordinary success for Romney. It does not, of course, guarantee him the nomination, but no other Republican has had a comparable day since the campaign began, and Romney's triumph comes four days before the absentees are available for casting in New Hampshire. Romney's success today has also clearly panicked Mike Huckabee who was on with Glenn Beck tonight warning that the "ruling class" in America is growing more distanced from the people --the sort of arch-populist class warfare nonsense which has never had a home in the GOP mainstream.
My pal-in-punditry J-Pod argues that "as a matter of rhetoric, it tended toward the bland," but even if I agreed with him --and I don't-- so what? It was a political speech designed to move voters toward Romney while anticipating the general election beyond, and as such it succeeded beyond what any observer of politics was predicting, and it did so by appealing to the best aspects of American character. The Dobson announcement (see below) is the sort of thing that "moves the needle" as Fred Barnes put it on Fox news tonight. The angry e-mails I am receiving from supporters of other candidates and especially from anti-American lefties underscores the reality that Romney had a great, great day.
It is hardly a secret that if I had to vote today, I would vote for Romney, or that I think Mayor Giuliani is a superb candidate and would make an excellent nominee. If Rudy gives a great speech with the stakes purposely raised and the entire national media (and a lot of the international media) focused on it live during its delivery, I'll be the first to praise him as well. Good analysts grade on the achievement, not the hope.
Some early takes on the speech from conservatives were less enthusiastic than mine, and that just means that a pundit or two had a bad morning, and their analytical skills of the GOP race less trustworthy than before.
But to persist in minimizing the success of Romney's speech or the talent and passion with which it was delivered calls to mind my favorite Irish saying: When everybody says you're drunk, you'd better sit down.
Finally, a note to my angry e-mailers: It doesn't matter that you don't like Rush or Dr. Dobson, or that I thought Harriet Meirs got a raw deal. Your opinion of who ought to be the GOP nominee doesn't matter beyond your vote, and then only if you are a GOP voter, which most of you aren't. The folks listed above matter. Because they earned the respect of the voters who decided the past two presidential elections and who will decide the next --the patriots and the values voters, the investment class and the national security-minded.
I will be devoting the entire show tomorrow to the speech. Had I been on the radio the day after JFK's 1960 speech, I hope I would have had the news judgment to do the same thing for his speech.
|
|
The Usual Suspects will be here directly, ranting and raving about Hugh's bias, Hugh's obsession with Romney, Hugh's blah blah blah, failing to address anything in the speech itself or anything substantive at all. As usual.
Fortunately the noise and bluster from this clamorous group is certainly not proportionate to their numbers, and I suspect American voters have far more capacity of intellect and common sense than you see illustrated by these loudmouths in the comments section of this blog. |
|
|
...one already arrived before me. |
|
"Good analysts grade on the achievement, not the hope."
There it is again. This over-the-top slobbering over Romney is more about Hugh than anything else.
I ask again. What is he going to do when it is all over? If he is this nuts now, what will he become with another huge mark on his judgment? |
|
|
CDubber was right... at times the loudmouths seem to outnumber people with sense, at least on this blog, but if they can make themselves feel better by thinking they possess some sort of "moral superiority", then let them rant on. As the saying goes... "give 'em enough rope...". I could really care less what the Noise Makers say, Romney delivered a clear, concise and apparently heartfelt speech, that appealed to individuals with a clear moral conscience, which is, of course, a foreign concept to MOST liberals. |
|
This is what drives me crazy about the people who post on these sites. Not just on the Right but also on the Left. They think they are making a point about "the enemy" and then in the very same thought, they turn around and do the same exact thing.
Here's what you wrote...do you see what I see? Something about "moral superiority," perhaps?
"CDubber was right... at times the loudmouths seem to outnumber people with sense, at least on this blog, but if they can make themselves feel better by thinking they possess some sort of "moral superiority", then let them rant on. As the saying goes... "give 'em enough rope...". I could really care less what the Noise Makers say, Romney delivered a clear, concise and apparently heartfelt speech, that appealed to individuals with a clear moral conscience, which is, of course, a foreign concept to MOST liberals." |
|
"Romney's success today has also clearly panicked Mike Huckabee who was on with Glenn Beck tonight warning that the "ruling class" in America is growing more distanced from the people --the sort of arch-populist class warfare nonsense which has never had a home in the GOP mainstream."
He's been saying this for months. And why would he be panicking? He's moving up in every single poll these days.
"Some early takes on the speech from conservatives were less enthusiastic than mine, and that just means that a pundit or two had a bad morning, and their analytical skills of the GOP race less trustworthy than before."
What?! Are you serious?! They're not trustworthy because they "were less enthusiastic than you?
But I suppose I'm not a GOP voter and to be taken serious since I strongly disagree with you, Hugh.
Aye, yi, yi! Hugh, do you hear yourself? You sound JUST like the MSM you're supposedly no longer apart of.
|
|
The speech was a failure before Romney uttered a single word. George H.W. Bush, the man who introduced Romney to the audience, once said:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."
GAME. OVER.
|
|
Why? Because of George H. W. Bush, the man who introduced Romney to the audience, once said:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."
GAME. OVER.
|
|
|
Is there anyone who doesn't wish their own candidate had given it? It was brief, to the point and was firmly rooted in a profound understanding how our rights were first established and institutionalized in our constitution. A commenter earlier today mentioned that Mitt wrote the speech himself. If true, that make the speech greater by several orders of magnitude. In any case, it will stand the test of time and may even get better as we look back. |
|
|
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has taken the lead in South Carolina’s Republican Presidential Primary. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Huckabee with 25% of the vote, Mitt Romney with 18% and Fred Thompson with 18%. A month ago, Romney and Thompson were on top. |
|
|
I don't think it hurt that Mitt gave this speech while Giuliani is crashing and burning while up to his ears in scandals and just after McCain got the kiss of death by being endorsed by the Manchester Union Leader. |
|
"Is there anyone who doesn't wish their own candidate had given it?"
Yes, I'm glad Huckabee or Thompson did not give this speech because it was completely irrelevant. If I was in Team Romney right now, I'd be worried, because my guy just gave a good speech for all the wrong reasons and invited the media to ask him all the more about an issue that was not issue.
Romney is not suffering in the polls because of his religion, he is suffering because of his character and candor and his speech should have been about his position inconsistencies. |
|
Mitt spoke of lighthouse principles that govern all nations of the Earth and that in the history of time have prevailed upon men and women to be powerful and successful.
Mitt invoked an appreciation for the past, clarified his and all Mormons' positions on public service associated with the LDS beliefs and the Constitution of the United States, and he set a course for people of faith.
Hugh pointed this out in his book very clearly. Strategy, presence, faith and communication. None of us should be surprised by Mitt or Hugh. |
|
My candidate is Rudy.
But I have to concur with Hugh on this. I think Hugh sometimes goes over the top in hit abundant enthusiasm for Mit. Today though Mit hit one out of the park and my hat is off to him.
A job well done.
I blog to this effect at my blog http://SPQR.townhall.com . |
|
|
Wrong. Romney no longer has to answer ANY questions about religion. He just made a timeless and most definitive statement on the issue. If that is not enough, there is nothing else to say. Huckabee, on the other hand, is in a very difficult corner. Is he now going to be getting messages from God from a burning bush? Romney is running as an American who took an oath before God to honor his constitutional duties and obligations. Huckabee is running while claiming to be the only true Christian. I think Huck is going to be hearing it from the MSM. I can't figure out why you would bring up Thompson. I imagine his point of view is similar, if not identical, to Romney's. |
|
I am glad to see how gracious Hugh is about this---Jeeeze Louizee.
I agree it was a very good speech. Mitt did well. We will see if it translates to Romney winning Iowa and South Carolina. I will say this much, if he is the nominee I am less concerned about him having the legs to hold up against Hillary or Obama.
And Pasadena Phil, this was Romney's speech. I actually liked it very much, but it would not make any sense for the other candidates to make a similar speech. They have other issues that may calls for great oratory events, but not this particular topic. |
|
|
|
|
Huckabee has a bullseye painted on his forehead right now and he won't survive the experience. You may not have noticed it, but Mitt just took Iowa away from him like he was taking candy from a baby. That means that the earliest possible victory for The Huckster will be South Carolina....but it's even doubtful if he can win there after losing Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Michigan to Mitt. It wasn't just Chris Matthews who saw greatness in Mitt today. It was anybody with an ounce of intelligence. |
|
said, "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."?
That is profoundly un-American and is frankly just plain sick.
Thomas Jefferson would not be at all pleased.
Just to demonstrate just how truly un-American and sick it is, let me take the liberty of modifying it just a bit.
"No, I don't know that Jews and Christens should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under Allah."
- Imam GHWB
|
|
My primary interest here has been to witness Hugh's orgasmic take on all-things-Romney. But after seeing that others were sharing in this orgasm, I decided to re-read the speech.
I found it to be what most here would find it, if it were given by a poser representing that other party.
It was insipid. It was a masterful melding of pandering and condescension.
To every person who recognizes the BLATANT flip-flopping, which surely is everyone, this line is astonishing:
"Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
Romney is saying that he doesn't respect anyone who falls for this.
Profound understanding of the constitution my foot: Talking about one's faith - in specific (non-generic) terms - does not "enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution." The founders understood a religious test to be a law that bars practitioners of a certain faiths from serving their country. That's what a religious test is all about.
Romney basically told everyone who wonders about his faith to kiss off. That's fine, that's the way it should be, but let's not so easily be played to be fools and think this is anything "profound."
|
|
|
Every candidate has been asked, either directly or obliquely, whether they think Mormons are Christians or how they feel about religion in politics. Romney has just provided the perfect answer they all might now use. It will be interesting to see if this issue now disappears. If it doesn't, I know what Mitt's answer will be: "Read my speech. I have nothing else to say". The only candidate who cannot avoid having a problem is Huckabee. He's looking more and more like Jimmy Carter every day. He is running for preacher-in-chief. |
|
|
Rudy had my vote until today. Romney's speech showed the most incredible insight into America's heart since Zell Miller's address. This race is over for me. |
|
|
If you failed to detect profundity in Mitt's Speech, perhaps it's because you're intellectually incapable of apprehending any. |
|
You are defining terms and constitutional concepts to serve your own purposes. The religious concepts embedded in the constitution assumed that American citizens were Christians and would govern themselves by higher law than that of the US Constitution. It was expected that such a citizenry would produce mostly virtuous men to serve in public office. An oath to God means nothing and gives no one any reason to trust the man giving it he doesn't believe in a day of reckoning in the hereafter. What was meant by a "religious test" was that there would be no "I have the authority because my God is the real God while yours is a false god.". It was expected that you would express you faith publically but no impose your beliefs onto others based on YOUR God.
And if you don't see the profound points in the speech, open y |
|
|
Hugh, I'm firmly in MR's corner, like you, but this post came across like the Dean Scream. |
|
You are defining terms and constitutional concepts to serve your own purposes. The religious concepts embedded in the constitution assumed that American citizens were Christians and were already privately guided a by higher law than that of the US Constitution. That is what makes a virtuous society. It was expected that such a citizenry would produce mostly virtuous men to serve in public office. An oath to God means nothing and gives no one any reason to trust the man giving it he doesn't believe in a day of reckoning in the hereafter. What was meant by a "religious test" was that there would be no "My God is one true God. Yours is a false god." argument for considering who had a right to serve in public office.
And if you can't see the profound points in the speech, I don't know what to say. That is why a named my blog "TheWayWeAre". It is hard to see things as they are if you only hear what you want to hear. |
|
|
My PC suddenly hibernated while I was writing and I didn't realize my incomplete comment had posted. |
|
Not sure a speech can be rated objectively. Perhaps if it propels Mitt Romney to the Presidency, then one would have to admit that this speech had a lot to do with that.
But right now? It's a matter of opinion and opinion is subjective.
My opinion is that it was a great speech. It would be nice to have a President like Romney and see him speaking regularly like that. Very inspiring.
What makes it even more uplifting is the reaction that those on the left are having to it. Fantastic. |
|
"Huckabee is running while claiming to be the only true Christian. I think Huck is going to be hearing it from the MSM."
You would think, but conventional wisdom does not apply here. The MSM knows Huckabee has *zero chance* in the general election. Thus they will continue to hammer Romney and prop up Huckabee as the "people's choice," only to turn on him in the general election and watch him get bulldozed by Clinton or Obama.
Huckabee is non-electable and Republican, thus the MSM favorite. |
|
'The Wisconsin Right to Life PAC is proud to endorse Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson’s stellar 100% right to life voting record and his personal commitment to the protection of human life is deeply appreciated by our organization. We strongly believe in his ability to win the presidential election.'
Anybody know of any major pro life groups who have endorsed Mitt? If not, why not? |
|
I, too have made no bones about my opinion of Mitt. I think he's too cute by half and driven by polls.
So I Like Mike.
This isn't because Huckabee is an evangelical; they are *both* attempting to be the "values" candidate vs. Guiliani who is the only other Republican with a shot. I liked Thompson, but he fizzled. Now I Like Mike.
One good speech won't erase a year of pandering on immigration and farm subsidies. One speech won't eliminate the sour taste I have over Mitt's gay rights and abortion flips (no flip-flops, I was corrected yesterday on this).
Apparently Iowa and now SC Like Mike too.
The speech will give Mitt buzz: today on Special Report and tomorrow on HH. Then it's back to the regularly-scheduled programming (Huckaboom). |
|
|
That may be but I doubt it. With McCain having no traction in the early primaries and the RNC doing everything they can to pave the way for Giuliani, I believe that Huckabee is the only "throw away" nuisance candidate that the RNC can promote for Iowa without fear of creating a major threat. I really don't think the MSM cares. They like Rudy and McCain. I really don't think the MSM is THAT engaged yet to start worrying about Romney this early when his national numbers are still relatively low. I think Romney will win in Iowa and the surprise candidate will be (cut my tongue out) Ron Paul. I expect Huck to come in third. His rise was not due of voters approving, or even knowing, what Huck is about. As the learn, the passion will die out and he will look like the Jimmy Carter that he is. |
|
|
I came away with the feeling that this man gets America's inner workings. It was very moving. I think it is a speech every child in America should hear in school as representing the religious view and core values of the founding of the United States of America. I think Romney skillfully captured the great Story behind the American Dream. It actually made me feel that religious-like sentiment about our country that we may call patriotism: seeing that this country was both a Noble Experiment and the fulfillment of a Divine Promise to humanity. That speech was a gift to the country. |
|
Let's see...
Best debater (by miles and miles)
Spectacular buzz with a fraction of the money spent by Romney, #1 IA and #1 SC and #1 Nationally (Rasmussen: In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Mike Huckabee retains a three-point edge with support from 21% of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide while Rudy Giuliani is the top choice for 18%. Mitt Romney earns 12% while Fred Thompson and John McCain each attract 11%
Nice meme with Huck being unelectable. Keep repeating that; good therapy... |
|
I think obviously McCain, Giuliani, and Thompsons have zero issue with Mitt Romney being Mormon. Their fights with Mitt and each other have been purely over policy or attacking each other's records. I cannot recall any candidate bringing up the other's religion.
As for Huckabee, I heard him asked about Romney being a Mormon and he said he was not qualified to discuss another candidate's faith and that was something to ask Mitt Romney. Is that an attack on Mitt's faith?
Frankly other than agreeing with Mitt Romney's sentiments raised in his speech (which I agree were very well stated), I am not sure what else they can say on the topic. |
|
"Romney is not suffering in the polls because of his religion, he is suffering because of his character and candor and his speech should have been about his position inconsistencies."
Oh please. Romney was firmly on top in Iowa. Then Huckabee launched his desperate "Christian leader" ads (the nuclear option) and came from nowhere to take the lead. Character and candor issues for Romney? Hardly. Huckabee threw the religion card and profited from it. Period.
Not that you ever let the obvious truth get in your way. |
|
I love this typical subtle HH opinion:
"There can be no objective argument against that conclusion."
That's it. HH declared it so. The lawyer rests his case your honor. No jury needed. I stated the fact so it must be.
But if you're uncomfortable with Romney for any reason, remember, you are an unserious analyst not to be trusted. After all, look at HH spotless record of predictions and pronouncements. All out of the park.
And if Rush Limbaugh, a junkie bigot is impressed, then it must be true!
|
|
|
You may be right about Dr. Paul being the surprise candidate in this bunch. He will not win a primary or come close, but he will do better than people think. The only good news about Paul is he will probably run as an independent and draw more votes from the Dems than the GOP. |
|
|
|
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs. "
Was Mitt respecting the faith of Roman Catholics in France when he tried to convert them to LDS? How come those Catholics were not allowed to be true to the faith of THEIR father and to THEIR beliefs?
When the Missionaries come to my door, I tell them I go to the Lutheran church up the street, but they keep talking to me about LDS. Why won't they let me by true to the faith of my fathers. Is this a one way street? |
|
Reason, you missed the point. The truth about Hugh's Romneymania is that Hugh is selling his book.
If Romney goes down on Feb 5, Hugh's publishers won't be able to give Hugh's book away. If Romney seals the deal on Feb 5, Hugh's books will remain #1 on Amazon and NYTimes all the way through November. If Romney is elected President, Hugh will be his official biographer.
No disrespect Hugh but you argue w/LIB reporters to be transparent and in this case, you have many interest in seeing Romney advance including book sales.
I agree that Hugh's slobbering is off-putting and turns me away from Mitt rather than towards him.
I'm still leaning towards Rudy and Mitt can still persuade me if he stops deferring to lawyers in matters of national security but I would much prefer Mitt over Huckleberry. I am also an evangelical Christian who thinks, as Dennis Prager said today, that Mitt's Mormonism is as relevant to me as Mitt's hat size. |
|
No Rudy, No McCain, No Huckabee
Huckabee means no amnesty the same way GWB does when he says it.
Romney and Thompson are saying the right things now, but haven't always. Hunter and Tancredo have been working on this for years on our behalf. Longer than most of you have been alarmed about it, they have been trying to sound the alarm. Choose carefully in the primaries, your future depends on it.
|
|
|
That is exactly my take. He is just revving his engines to run independent with momentum. He can deny all he wants. He didn't decide to run at his age to position himself for 2012 and he couldn't possible believe he had a chance as a Republican. |
|
(clear throat)..excuse me everyone. Just so all of you political nuts who are obsessing about this speech today are totally overlooking what every normal guy is thinking about today...we aren't coming home from work thinking, "I think I will watch the news so I can hear some candidate talk about how he and his religion matters too in this race." They are thinking about, "How much $ do I have to spend for Christmas and dang, now I have to go shopping after a terrible mass murder at a nice mall. That could've been me. I am tired of the wackos wrecking our country and the media glorifying it for them. What are the politicians going to do to fix this?"
Get your heads on your shoulders, people. Which candidate is going to make a difference so we don't let our own little out of control kids ruin our country by mowing people down with bullets? Mitt didn't talk much about that today. |
|
We don't know if this speech will have any effect at all on the polls. It certainly won't for me. This is the speech I care about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_5ZCzAsAAc
Mitt didn't give that one. Mitt gave one that doesn't matter to me. |
|
Does McCain's bigoted mother count? That was pretty ugly. (That McCain. What a guy! He even called 84% of Americans bigots again last Sunday. But I digress)
Most of the vitriol from Rudy has been pen*s envy over Mitt's money.
It's an issue for Thompson because he is/was widely perceived as having a strong appeal to evangelicals and has spoken to the issue. If he were still strong in the polls, you can bet the MSM would be all over him on this. For now, Huckabee is the only inviting target and he placed the bull's eye on himself. |
|
I guess I just don't believe that the electorate is so stupid in Iowa that because they see an ad with Christian Leader in it that they just mindlessly run to that candidate. I guess you do. That said, I have great optomism that a candidate's message, character and vision is far more important to the people of Iowa.
And for the record: Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister AND a former two term Governor of AR, thus the use of Christian Leader was appropriate just as Mormon Leader would work for Mitt. |
|
Romney helped himself a lot. The key question right now is when will Huck's negatives bite and what is the next step after the speech?
This should evolve into a 3 way race with Romney in the middle of the party. Rudy has been shoved to the left and is not strong in the first 4 states. Huck is positioning as "God's appointed candidate" as that gets him quick cheap easy votes in the primary. However, that is death in the long run. Pat Robertson comes to mind.
I am more concerned about the early primary states than I am national numbers. However, Rudy's national numbers are low enough that doing badly in the first 4 primaries will be very dangerous. The Rope a Dope strategy may fail nationally. |
|
jesus said he came to bring a sword(not a literal one) THAT WOULD DIVIDE PEOPLE(I DID NOT WRITE THIS IT IS IN THE GOSPELS)- tHE CLAIMS OF jESUS DIVIDE PEOPLE PERIOD. HE CLAIMED TO BE EQUAL TO GOD THE FATHER. HIS DISCIPLES WORHIPPED HIM.
DO MORMONS WORHIP JESUS AS GOD?
YES OR NO?
other than that I liked some of the things mitt had to say...he mentioned Roger Williams...he if he were alive would be opposed to mormonism on principle but for their right to practice their religion. Google "a plea for religious liberty" by Roger Williams
|
|
|
|
What was profound? I've heard all of this before. All of the quotes are commonly known. All of the concepts are old hat.
This is supposed to be about fixing his Mormon problem. Happy-feel-good-God-Talk is standard Repub fare. In my opinion, this speech was what you would expect from any Repub candidate trying to woo conservative Christians. I don't think it did that this Thursday morning, because so little was said (aside from the standard values talk.) Nothing he said today hasn't been said before by him and by the other religious candidates.
He drew attention to the fact that his faith is problem for some in the Repub party, and then underscored this problem by breezing past it.
If Romney does win the nomination - which I don't see happening - all it will take to scare a bunch of elderly Christian voters is talk of the star Kolob, the divine nature of the area surrounding Kansas City, and a few things about the Mohicans. I'm saying this as someone who thinks Mormonism is as a weird as most religions, but I don't think it should be a deal breaker for public office. I don't think the base of the Repub Party is as accomodating.
Your take on religious tests is interesting, but at the end of the day, the Constitution is about law and the point of the religious test is that there can be no religious test in law. We can fluff that up all we want with religion, but the Constitution is still about law. No religious test means you can't pass a law that bars someone from office based on their religion. That's it. |
|
|
Apparently you don't understand the issue. Why do you insist on establishing a religious test? Did you not read or listen to the speech? It would help if you gave us YOUR definition of what it means to not require a religious test. |
|
"I guess I just don't believe that the electorate is so stupid in Iowa that because they see an ad with Christian Leader in it that they just mindlessly run to that candidate. I guess you do."
Didn't much of Huckabee's gain in the polls occur (and in dramatic fashion) after running those ads?
I can add 2 plus 2... |
|
Wow what a reaction to a lot of fluff. I don't think religion should matter but rather character. A text book history lesson on freedom of religion does nothing but calm the feathers of the simple minded. It answered nothing but that he can give a speach - rah rah.
I don't care what any of the candidates religions are until they try to mislead in regards to that religion.
|
|
In late Nov - early Dec of 2003, Dean had the lead in Iowa and NH - Kerry was over 10 Pts behind in NH - Dean crashed and burned and the rest, shall we say, is history.
Mitt's timing was good - absentee ballots will go out in a few days - the buzz will still be in the air. Any later and it would get lost in the shuffle of the holidays.
Huck has issues with immigration, taxes and criminals - now that he has surged in the polls he is vulnerable to close examination - not sure his record will bear the scrutiny.
They are all better than Hillary or Obama |
|
|
If you don't get it, then I can't explain it to you. And you point about the religious test is a legalistic way of saying what I said. The constitution is only two pages long for a reason but intent still holds much sway in its interpretation. My definition was consistent to what John Adams meant and probably why Mitt chose that particular quote. That so many people have such a big problem for such an obviously decent and capable man as Romney speaks volumes about religious bigotry in this country, particularly evangelicals (assuming the commenter are what they say they are). |
|
Please help me with this...
People that are uncomfortable with Mormons are bigots, right? But being deathly afraid immigrants, like Virginia Patriot and the others Mitt panders toward (after saying Buenos Dias to the garners at Rancho Romney) is *not* bigoted.
I'm not talking about border security, which *everyone* supports. I'm talking about excessively-harsh language about illegal aliens, geared solely to gin up individuals like the Virginia Patriot. |
|
*sigh*
Hugh, People are mad at you, I'm kinda mad at you. I think what irritates me the most is that I've looked up to you for a long time. I've sent IN BUT NOT OF to alot of people, extolled the virtues of your radio show. When you first started talking about Romney I was like...oh cool, this guy sounds good. But what bugged me was that..well...I saw more than Mitt Romney running, more than Rudy Giuliani. I saw some solid conservatives, with great policies that have been extolled by all the people you mentioned above, but by you? Nope...not a word. Suddenly if it's anti Mitt, Mitt is on the phone to defend himself, if it's Pro Mitt, it's the biggest headline on your site, the first thing out of your mouth on the show. You and a few other center right conservatives told us it's a two man race and to me, it started to sound condescending.
We suddenly didn't know ANYTHING, and you knew all. You haven't been objective, because you haven't been fair. When Rush, National Review, Investors business daily said he liked Fred, not a word from you. When Medved talked about liking Huckabee, you dismissed it out of hand. Instead of trying to BUILD UP the party, You closed it up not giving any of these other upstanding, GOOD men the time of day. So yeah...I'm mad at you, and I can see why most everyone else is starting to get that way too. |
|
[BMessenger on December 6, 2007 8:35 PM]"Romney is not suffering in the polls because of his religion, he is suffering because of his character and candor and his speech should have been about his position inconsistencies."
What "position inconsistencies"?-- details, please.
///////////////////////////////
Do you know when Romney was last pro-choice? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQbeBC_fOI
Sheriff of Floppingham, in
Folger, Janet. 27 November 2007. "Sir Mike-A-Lot and the Queen of Slaughter"
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58879
Morris, Dick & Eileen McGann. 30 November 2006. "The Bottom of the Barrel"
http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60444 046.phtml
Romney seems to be a chameleon who adjusts his
positions to suit the need of his environment. When
he was running in a liberal state against the most
liberal member of the Senate, he talked liberal. But
now that he wants to win a Republican primary with
a conservative base, he speaks their language.
Now, he says that his views on abortion have
"evolved and changed" since he sought election in
the most liberal state in the nation and he now
considers himself pro-life.
But on abortion, the only thing liberals and
conservatives agree on is that they can't stand
those who would flip-flop on this moral issue,
adjusting not only to the political winds but also to
the geographic area in which they are running at the
moment. Since Romney has flip-flop-flipped, going
from pro-life to pro-choice to pro-life, he is unlikely
to gain traction on the right.
|
|
|
http://www.elfyourself.com/?id=1208530624 |
|
Chris Matthews said something I agree with:
"I saw greatness today."
So did I. It's underscored by the fact that this man drafted the address himself.
Politically, he was on par with Reagan today in terms of his ability to take a very complex subject and break it down to simplicity.
The GOP would be lucky to have Romney as it's nominee. Not just for his mind, but for his ability to unite us. He can appeal to the evangelical conservatives who are under Huckabee's wing, and he can appeal to the more north-eastern, business and security-oriented factions supporting Rudy. |
|
Hugh,
I agree with you. My take is that this nation will so very fortunate to get a man of Romney's character and moral fiber(in addition to his leadership skills) if we are wise enough to elect him President!
Don't let all the site pests get you down!!!!
|
|
Well, then Glenn should have asked him, "Do you think MY faith is a cult?" since Glenn is a Mormon.
That irony is too rich.
Mitt delivers the "Mormon" speech. Huck refuses to say that Mormons are not members of a cult. And then Huck appears on Glenn Beck's program that night - and Glenn is a Mormon. |
|
|
As you know, McCain denounced what his mom said immediately. Nice try. And McCain did not call people who oppose immigration reform bigots. You just assume that everytime someone disagrees with you on policy. |
|
Lets see if I can summarize Hugh over the last 48 hours:
1) Mitt made the greatest speech of his career, possibly in the history of Republican politics
2) All those who do not see the brilliance of Romney's speech aren't serious analysts
3) Despite others' accusations, Hugh's favoritism is clearly in check - look, he can say nice things about Rudy too
4) Any listener or contributor who disagrees with Hugh is probably a Dem or doesn't really matter anyway because they are only 1 vote.
Or, at bumper sticker length:
I'm Right, You Don't Count, Go Mitt!
Well, congrats Hugh, you've managed to chase me away until after the primaries, if I come back at all. |
|
I took one of those on-line Presidential Match surveys last week. I expected Fred or Duncan to be my best match in the end.
Wrong - the survey said my candidate match was Mitt Romney! I didn't believe it.
Now, after hearing that speech I'm thinking that maybe I should do some navel-gazing to figure out just who I should really be supporting. |
|
the harder the blowhards blow,
the bigger the Mitt man's show.
given the vehemence with which the ANONYMOUS (cowardly) posters come here, you know Mitt killed it today.
they just can't stand to see the guy do well.
i'll repeat again - I don't think any comment made by a person not willing to identify him or herself by first and last name and whether they work for a party is worth a lick of salt! (especially the blowhard cowards who hide behind their anonymity - have fun picking up your McCain campaign paycheck fellas!) |
|
"Didn't much of Huckabee's gain in the polls occur (and in dramatic fashion) after running those ads?"
No, he was moving up much earlier than that ad. And if Mike's ad is such a big factor in this race then why on earth is Romney tanking? He's outspent Mike 20 to 1 with ad after ad about values, integrity, etc.
"I can add 2 plus 2..."
Perhaps you can, but that doesn't mean you understand what is going in Iowa and beyond. |
|
Dr. B,
You think it's possible that Chrissy Matthews saw greatness today because he thinks Hillary's chances are better against Mitt than Rudy and therefore he sees Hillary's greatness? |
|
Hugh isn't working for the interests of the party. He's working for the interests of himself. Here's a goodbye from someone who has listened to you when you were in the A.M.! I might come back after the primaries, but who knows.
Good luck to the Mittster - Adios! |
|
I just saw this in comments section Chicago Tribune
Carlos
Chicago, IL Reply »
|Report Abuse |#141 51 min ago
"I'm an old die-hard left-wing agnostic.
So why am I planning to vote for Huckabee if he's nominated and Hillary is his opponent?
There's something about him I trust."
This shows Huckabee u=is not just appealing to evangelicals! |
|
|
|
"And if Mike's ad is such a big factor in this race then why on earth is Romney tanking?"
Um, doesn't the first part of your question answer the second part?
Again, 2+2. |
|
|
On "Meet The Press", McCain was asked if his efforts to pass the amnesty bill were the main reason for his campaign swoon. His answer was amounted to saying the Americans always resent immigrants when there is a surge of immigration "we all remember NO IRISH NEED APPLY!". "And it wasn't amnesty". I don't know how else to take that. He couldn't just answer the question yes because he would have then had to answer "Why?. Easier to give elliptical and ignorant answers. That guy has an ego that just won't quit. You'd feel much better about the world if you would just face reality and let him go. Cubs fans also have a problem feeling good about the world. |
|
|
The Catholics that Mitt converted to Mormonism in France didn't HAVE to convert. Mitt didn't use physical force. The missionaries that came to your door never forced you to become a Mormon. You could tell them you're not interested and they would understand....they would leave you alone. They've experienced rejection before. They've also experienced success. But it's not their fault that there used to be more Lutherans than Mormons, and that now there are more Mormons than Lutherans. And it's not Mitt's fault either. It's highly doubtful if any of his converts in France were Lutherans. Get Over It. |
|
|
Well if that's the way Carlos feels, that's good enough for me! How can anyone refute that kind of irrefutable evidence! |
|
LOL! Give me a break. Huckabee has a rise in popularity because the liberal media loves his spending habits with other people's money.
If Huckabee was truly this popular it would translate to campaign cash and it's not. Huckabee can't even raise Ron Paul money. |
|
|
|
"Is there anyone who doesn't wish their own candidate had given it? It was brief, to the point and was firmly rooted in a profound understanding how our rights were first established and institutionalized in our constitution."
I haven't heard the speech or read it, but from what I gather from various pundits, specifically on National Review Online's The Corner IT WAS, with the exception of a few lines, a speech that any candidate could have given, and it would have sounded just as good.
So it was a good speech then. It might have been a very good speech with excellent delivery. But was it was anyway as historic as the speech that JFK made that this Mass. native is ripping off thematically? I don't know. Does it make Romney any more or less worthy to be the POTUS? No. His integrity is still in question as far as I am concerned. I can trust a Democrat to be a Democrat; I can trust Romney to be Romney but I can't trust him to say what state he is from. |
|
|
|
Oh, I know Matthews is a leftie. That's why I put the disclaimer first. Frankly, I'm shocked I even agree with him this once. As to your broader point, I think the Dems are more scared of Mitt than any other cantidate. He's got a great campaign structure, no dirty laundry (like Guiliani) to be swift-boated with, and he has appeal outside of the South and Evangelicals (I think that's pretty much where Huckabee's strength lies). Mitt would chew up Hillary and spit her out. His only weaknesses are: Changing stances on abortion (not really a weakness outside of our primary) and his religion - which he addressed today as well as any human being possibly could.
Lastly I'll just say this: Romney's speech was (for once in politics these days) - inspiring. I really was inspired to be a member of the nation he described today.
That bit about state-sponsored religion leading to empty cathedrals in Europe was incredibly poignant to me especially. Pluralism truly is a strength.
I think we'd be lucky to have his mind at the helm of our party. |
|
"Um, doesn't the first part of your question answer the second part?"
No, it doesn't. Again if all Romney needs to do is run a great ad to get Iowa back why hasn't he since he has outspent Mike 20 to 1. He's got a bazillion dollars to do this, why doesn't he?
With all the ads that Romney has run, YOU truly believe that a five second flash of "Christian Leader" in a 30 second ad is all it takes to bring down your man? Wow.
I beginning to doubt your addition skills.
|
|
Yes, you are right Huck has had a love-in with the media. But he also is very folksy, did well in the debate, came across as a likeable guy, is funny, etc.
As an orator and debater he's very good. I personally just have a big problem with his politics (way to liberal for my taste) and his populism. I also have some problems with his making religion a wedge issue.
But his love in with the media was last week, and this week he's getting tested now, too. The NIE thing, the Dumond thing, the immigration stuff. He's getting hard questions now.
I'd expect he's raising more money now than he ever has, but I doubt it will be big money - yes, nothing even close to Ron Paul.
I think he's having his moment in the sun, and once people see the record and the disorganization they'll move on. but you never know. He's long on charisma and that can go a long way.
there's a saying that "the markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
Huck might stay charismatic for longer than his record and liberal nature comes to the surface.
If so, it will be too bad for the GOP. I'm not betting that it will happen . . . but weird things happen. |
|
Pasadena Phil- do Mormons WORSHIP Jesus as God? Just answer YES or NO. I will wait for your answer of YES or NO-DO MORMONS worship JESUS as GOD? I will wait a long time huh?
Roger Williams, who was first founded Rhode Island the first colony to extend religiuos liberty- who Mitt referenced today:
In Williams' "A Plea for Religious Liberty", he writes:
"it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries"
BUT ALSO
It is as necessary, yea more honorable, godly, and Christian, to fight the fight of faith, with religious and spiritual artillery, and to contend earnestly for the faith of Jesus, once delivered to the saints against all opposers, and the gates of earth and hell, men or devils, yea against Paul himself, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN(MORONI?)or , IF HE BRING ANY OTHER FAITH OR DOCTRINE....(emphasis mine)
He is quoting from the New Testament book of Galations Chapter 1:v 7.
|
|
[Harry Oz on December 6, 2007 10:57 PM]"Huckabee... the liberal media loves his spending habits with other people's money."
Details?
Who shelled out more money per Iowa straw poll vote: Romney or Huckabee?
How much money did each Iowa straw poll vote cost Romney?
//////////////////////////////
Romney & the Iowa straw poll: 1:20 - 1:47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeP5A5cczqk
Michael Medved: AR tax growth w/ Huckabee tad better than Romney MA taxes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2d1d6b5f-7d2a-4ba4-af3 8-ce935abe2d7c%40e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
|
|
"Again if all Romney needs to do is run a great ad to get Iowa back why hasn't he since he has outspent Mike 20 to 1."
"Great ad?" You mean an ad that implies the main competitor isn't a Christian, like Huckabee's does? (Or can't you see the subtle implication?)
Apparently a religious firebomb of an ad gets you 20x the impact for your dollar. Mitt obviously can't use this tactic against a Baptist minister in Evangelical country, and I seriously doubt he would if he could.
"Mitt is not a Christian like you and me," implies Mike Huckabee. Poll numbers jump. Cause, effect. I know you're intellectually challenged based on your various ramblings and ravings on this site, but surely you grasp this simple concept. Or are you just trolling, as usual? |
|
and lesbians can serve with the head held high in the military."
Dr. B aren't you forgetting about this flip flop in addition to abortion- the liberla media will KILL him on this one-as Anderson cooper tried to do.
|
|
[Drex Davis on December 6, 2007 11:10 PM]"I personally just have a big problem with his [Huckabee's] politics (way to liberal for my taste)"
Details?
What do you think of Romney's politics back when Romney was MA governor?
///////////////////////////////
Mitt Romney on gun control -- 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk1bJOpYUqE
Morris, Dick & Eileen McGann. 30 November 2006. "The Bottom of the Barrel"
http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60444 046.phtml
Romney seems to be a chameleon who adjusts his
positions to suit the need of his environment. When
he was running in a liberal state against the most
liberal member of the Senate, he talked liberal. But
now that he wants to win a Republican primary with
a conservative base, he speaks their language.
Now, he says that his views on abortion have
"evolved and changed" since he sought election in
the most liberal state in the nation and he now
considers himself pro-life.
But on abortion, the only thing liberals and
conservatives agree on is that they can't stand
those who would flip-flop on this moral issue,
adjusting not only to the political winds but also to
the geographic area in which they are running at the
moment. Since Romney has flip-flop-flipped, going
from pro-life to pro-choice to pro-life, he is unlikely
to gain traction on the right.
Do you know when Romney was last pro-choice? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQbeBC_fOI
|
|
|
Dave, I had to chase the missionaries off my porch. The did not respect the 'faith of my fathers'; I do not like people banging on my door to try to convert me to their religion. If Mitt can be true to the faith of his fathers, I ask Mormons allow me that same opportunity without coming uninvited to my door and showing me 'another testament. No thanks. |
|
|
|
""Mitt is not a Christian like you and me," implies Mike Huckabee. Poll numbers jump. Cause, effect. I know you're intellectually challenged based on your various ramblings and ravings on this site, but surely you grasp this simple concept. Or are you just trolling, as usual?"
Sure, I grasp what you're really saying: Anyone whose not think like you is just trolling and/or ignorant. Now THAT'S narrow minded bigotry in my book.
Again, you're being paranoid and foolish and are lashing out accordingly.
One last time, If Mitt was so easy to bowl over with "Christian Leader" pop up for five seconds in ad then maybe, just maybe you should consider that this "intellectually challenged rambler" may just have a point that you can't bring yourself to accept.
|
|
Sorry, the fact is Huckabee raised taxes more than Bill Clinton and in less time. Anyone can try to spin the numbers to support there candidate but Huckabee is a serial tax raiser.
http://www.arkansasleader.com/2007/11/editorialswhos-bigges t-tax-raiser.html
Romney turned a 3 billion dollar deficit into a surplus without raising every tax in sight like Huckabee.
Romney turned around the Olympics.
Romney turned around over 150 businesses like Staples and Dominoes.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/pa rt3/
Huckabee is weak on taxes, weak on foreign policy, weak on immigration and weak on crime.
A rape victim begged Huckabee not to let out Wayne Dumond the rapist but he pushed for it anyway. He actually wrote a criminal and said:
"Dear Wayne my desire is that you be released from prison."
Huckabee would be a disaster!!
|
|
Romney has given an excellent speech! He gave it in a difficult situation. The thirst for the strong anti-mormon community will never be quenched but good hearted Christians were moved. As a Christian I will vote for Mitt Romney!
Go Mitt!
Huckabee is a "wolf in sheeps clothing"...bad on immigration...bad on taxes...bad on education...bad on crime...he's a RINO! |
|
|
|
|
The rapist Huckabee pushed to be let go, killed and raped a woman after he was released. |
|
|
|
|
|
HARRY OZ= HUGH HEWITT..cmon hugh how many pseudonyms do you mean?
Get a neutral report on taxation - Michael Medved has no axe to grind like you do.
now back to my question;
DO Mormons WORSHIP Jesus as God? YES OR
NO?
Interesting NO ONE IS ANSWERING THIS SO MY CONCLUSION IS THEY DO NOT! Your silence says volumes about the deceptive nature of Mormonism.
|
|
Asked about his religious beliefs during an appearance before about 500 Republicans in South Carolina yesterday, Fred Thompson said he attends church when he visits his mother in Tennessee but does not belong to a church or attend regularly at his home in McLean, Va., just outside Washington. The actor and former senator, who was baptized in the Church of Christ, said he gained his values from "sitting around the kitchen table" and said he did not plan to speak about his religious beliefs on the stump. "I know that I'm right with God and the people I love," he said, according to Bloomberg News Service. It's "just the way I am not to talk about some of these things." . . . And he did not seem particularly concerned that his admission would hurt him with voters. "Me getting up and talking about what a wonderful person I am and that sort of thing, I'm not comfortable with that, and I don't think it does me any good," he said. "People will make up their own mind about that, and that's the way I like it."
Glenn Reynolds says "I like that, too." http://instapundit.com/archives2/012603.php
|
|
|
|
Single most important issue to the core values voter, and Mitt just can't assuage the bulk of us that he isn't gonna just swing right back to pro-choice in the general election.
Yeah he said he's pro-life. I've heard Mitt *say* a lot of things to get elected...
His problem isn't kids with short sleeves and permanent-press slacks on bikes shlepping the third testament and looking for arguments (like here).
It's Abortion Stupid.
And "the speech" didn't fix that. |
|
Bmessenger- That is the BIGGEST PILE OF RUBBISH- Huckabee's Poll numbers have been going up LONG before that ad that is historically documentable but then you people don't rely alot on historical accuracy do you...well "pray about it and maybe the Lord will reveal to you in your bosom" that Hucakbee's numbers were going up before his ad. Trying to relate to you all through your lingo.
Either way YOU ARE WRONG about his numbers. |
|
It was a very good speech.
Mitt Romney is a good man, and a very intelligent and competent one.
Those are good traits, are they not? |
|
timoteotk writes: "...you people ...."
The phrase "you people..." is always and in every case a bigoted expression. |
|
The speech had VERY many good points-(especially the point on secularism as the New religion) HOWEVER the only thing I did not like is Mitt's feeling compelled to say he believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God because this is a ploy to make evangelicals think he believes like the do hence he is USING RELIGION DECEPTIVELY TO GET VOTES...this is WRONG. Mormons believe ALL people are the sons of God not JUST Jesus. UNlike evangelicals Mormaons do not WORSHIP Jesus as GOD! This is the KEY DIFFERENCE and he knows this. This will come out sooner or later.
The speech had some good statements...but also some that make literate evangelicals cringe. |
|
|
I was truly moved by Romney's speech today. It was inspiring. I am really impressed that he wrote it. I kept thinking during the speech that he has a fantastic speech writer. Then I found out that he wrote it. I was impressed with his sincerity also. There seem to be some crazed Huckabee fans commenting on this site. Wow, all I can say is - don't bring your nonsense to Arkansas. Huckabee is not very popular here and with good reason. He badly hurt the conservative cause in Arkansas. It was embarrassing to have him as governor during his ethics charges, several of which he was found to be guilty of. It was embarrassing to have him be a republican when he tried to take $70,000 worth of state owned furniture with him when he left the governors mansion. It was distressing to have him as governor as he freed so many criminals- all in a very moralistic way- but he made our state a more dangerous place to live. I have come to firmly believe that Huckabee is all for charity - the kind of charity where "I take your money and give it to who I think deserves it". I live in west central Arkansas and I am often surprised at the strong negative reaction the people of this area have about Huckabee, and believe me, this is a very evangelical area. We've learned the hard way. I voted for him - but I am so sorry I did. Don't be fooled like I was. He is a great speaker. He jokes and acts pious and whatever he thinks the audience wants, but so does a snake charmer. Be careful, if you elect Huckabee you will get a chance to rue the day. |
|
timoteotk yells: "DO Mormons WORSHIP Jesus as God? YES OR NO"
Respectfully the answer ins unequivocally yes!
This is from Mormon Doctrine and Covenants:
" HEAR, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the Lord is God, and beside him there is no Savior.
Of whom we bear record; and the record which we bear is the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son.
And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."
|
|
Rich from Ventura calls me a "bigot" interesting
Jesus said to the Pharisees-"you people are of your Father the DEVIL" hhmm guess Rich thinks Jesus was a bigot?
Jesus certainly did not think we are all "God's Children"
I guess Mitt is right and Jesus is a liar? |
|
If you're not as multi-orgasmic about the speech as Hugh is, you're suddenly not a credible analyst?
Ooo-kay. Hugh has officially jumped the shark.
|
|
rich- I am glad SOMEONE finally answered that!
Rich writes
"That by him(Jesus-correct?), and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created,
If that is TRUE why did not Mitt raise his hand earlier in the debates when asked how many of you do not believe in evolution? Hmmm
By the that whole portion above that you quoted from I am assuming the book of mormon is taken from Collosians in the New testament of the Bible. except for the last phrase: "and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."- that was added on by Joseph Smith.
|
|
|
Answer: These guys are too busy telling us how great Hugh and Mitt are and how unobjective we are if we don't beleive this was the greatest speech since the Gettysburg Address to answer your question. But remember just like old BC once said "it depends on your defintion of IS". Which God are you talking about, the one that created the world and gave HIS only SON to be sacrificed for the sins of this world, or some other god that is one of many and had several children? Notice how the question is answered, just the little men that come to my door to try and convert me. |
|
Are:
Crazed
Insane (as are all Trinitarians)
Bigoted
Am I missing any other perjoratives here, guys? Why is it the greater the support for Mitt, the more negative/ad hominem against Huck and people, like me, that took a look at Mitt, then Thompson and instead of settling for Guiliani, decided that *MAYBE* a *R E A L* pro-life guy that speaks up unequivocatingly that abortion is wrong, just might win...
Are you guys really that scared?
I'm here to have an intelligent discussion. Seems like you want an unquestioning Mitt fansite.
|
|
Calling Rich from Ventura....
Guess he couldn't answer that..ok |
|
|
Mitt Romney cut taxes 19 times, while under Huckabee the state tax burden increased by 47%. Why?? Because state spending went up 50% during Huckabee's tenure and the number of state employees increased by 20%. You cite Romney's getting a C from Cato and neglect to mention that Cato named Huckabee one of the worst 5 governors in America. Huckabee's proclivities include pardons for murderers, theft of taxpayer funded property, and a penchant for class warfare. And out of more than 300 million Americans, this is the guy you pick to be president? |
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the Club Tim!! little Rickie called me worse than that yesterday. I will wear his insults as a badge of honor!! We must be hitting a raw nerve here. I know that in the past, when I have confronted cults that when you get to close to the truth, they start to attack. (not saying that Mormons are cultist of course) |
|
timoteotk writes: " Mormons believe we are sons of God"
Yes, we do. As most Christians, we believe what Christ told us in Matthew 6: "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name..."
I say those words every day as I pray. I believe in Christ and try to follow his Word.
In fact, I am off to say my nightly prayer. Do try to calm down and stop yelling in here. Please turn out the lights when you leave.
Good night sweet prince...for you are a son of God, too.
|
|
Great question!!!!!!
A Christian is someone who realizes his "sin nature", that he inherited from his forefather Adam, :a natural inclination to ignore God that has seperated him from a relationship with the Triune God(Father, Son(JESUS), and Holy Sprit). Jesus became flesh(Fully GOD-FULLY MAN) and dwelt among men. He became the ultimate sacrifice (which the old testament sacrificial system foreshadowed) for our sin Nature. If we believe he died, was buried, Physically rose again for our sins then we automatically become sons of God- adopted into God's family and take on the righteous nature of the "second Adam"-Jesus! Jesus said to a very religious man in John Chapter 3 "you MUST be born again" (your first birth is physical- this birth is spiritual. To do this-Become a Christian- requires NO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. You simply ask God to forgive you of your sin nature and rebellion to his word and commandments and tell him you accept the sacrifice of Jesus and accept him as LORD. Talk to him in prayer. There is no hocus pocus you are simply talking to God and being honest with Him! If you do this you are assuered that your name will be written in the Lambs book of life and you will inherit etranl life as well as an abundant fulfilled life on earth. Becoming a Christian has NOTHING to do with your works but on Christ's work on the cross! this is called Grace-ie undeserved favor!!! (For more questions Read the book of John in the Bible.) |
|
The New Testament CLEARLY teaches we are ADOPTED into the family of God once we repent. What Do Mormons think of the passage where Peter says"God commands all men everywhere to repent!" in the book of Acts-
Yeah...invasion ofthe body snatchers...no valid response for valid questions.OK-
I think we can all agree that if we named a teddy bear jesus or Joseph smith we would not threaten to stone the person...WE CAN AGREE ON THAT CAN'T WE RICH? ...ok good night Rich. |
|
|
Blah Blah Blah- Medved quoted from a neutral source- Cato institute is not a "neutral source" |
|
"the religious concepts embedded in the constitution assumed that American citizens were Christians and would govern themselves by higher law than that of the US Constitution"
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Madison, the recognized author of The Constitution, was of the opinion that Christianity should not be assumed nor even implied to be established. That was the whole point of the Freedom of Religion bill.
In fact, Madison recognized the failures of basing governments on Christianity. To wit:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not."
Amazing how that sounds very familiar today. If you want to base your vote on whether a candidate is a Christian or not, fine. I would consider you to be somewhat small-minded, but hey, that's just me. I thought is was only the Middle East that elected leaders based on their religion. |
|
Someone who believes in Christ's words, and tries to follow them. Someone who believes Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for mankinds sins. Someone who personally believes Christ's saving grace will be the only method of saving souls in this world.
Mormons believe all that.
Some of you people just hate to hear that, but it's true. Get over yourselves and your rancid interpretations of my faith.
Mitt Romney is a good and honorable man.
|
|
Read Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults for a revealing expose of this bizarre religion. See http://www.waltermartin.org/whatsnew.html
PPS: If the definition of “bigotry” is simply a stubborn refusal to even consider the beliefs of others (such as liberals or atheists, or socialists?) (as someone posted in this thread) then, hopefully we are all bigots.
By the way romney's speech was boring amd irrelevant because it did nothing to address the concerns evangelical Christians have about the bizarre beliefs of the mormon cult, and the lack of judgement and discernment necessary to believe such ridiculous fables. The Book of mormon reads like something out of Grimm's Fairy Tales.
I will not be voting for Mitt for the same reasons I would not vote for a Wiccan, a Voodoo practitioner, a Muslim, or a person who believes he has been abducted by Aliens.
Why? Because any man who could believe all this, and not intellectually question it is not someone who has the judgment necessary to be President of this nation in a time of crisis.
Read Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults for a revealing expose of this bizarre religion.
See http://www.waltermartin.org/whatsnew.html
|
|
timoteotk, you asked "DO Mormons WORSHIP Jesus as God? YES OR NO"
Answer, YES, WE DO! Do you? If you do, try acting like it, in other words, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Juanita |
|
Bigotry is opposition or objection, not based on reason or intellect, to a person, thing or idea.
When we say that certain individuals are bigots because they think that Mormons are not Christians, it is because that belief is not based upon reason. No reasonable person can examine LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ and continue to think Mormons are not Christians. That we may not be evangelical Christians is true, but we are Christians nonetheless. And no amount of protesting will ever change that. One's status as a Christian is not decided by majority vote. It is decided within the heart of the individual professing the belief.
It is ironic that many of these people dispute LDS claims of continuing revelation, but find no contradiction in declaring that Mormons are not Christian by no other authority than their own revelation.
Romney's speech today was pure statesmanship. It is unfortunate that so many are so unacquainted with true statesmanship that they fear and deride its appearance, and mock it out of ignorance.
No reasonable person could claim this was boring. Even an indifferent technical analysis of the speech tells us this is a great and historic address. The profoundly ridiculous statement, that it was boring, speaks volumes about the critic. |
|
Romney's biggest failure this week was cowtowing to the minority's ridiculous religious bully tactics, and doing so badly. How often did the man actually speak about Mormonism? Once? But he did answer the questions the religious zealots in his party wanted answered on just how contorted he is willing to become over an issue that is quite meaningless in 2008.
|
|
With italics, even! Now I know I can take your judgment to the bank.
Romney’s speech was a good one. I myself was underwhelmed, but so what? It’s not about what one person thinks. If the great consensus of opinion is that it was a good speech, then by definition it was a good speech.
Of course, I used that exact same language about Huck a week ago. It doesn’t matter if I (or Hugh, or Mitt’s fans) don’t find Huck to be a strong or convincing candidate – the unquestioned fact that millions of primary voters do find him so is what counts. Somehow, though, I can’t recall Hugh or any of his backup singers acknowledging the point, that it isn’t their own judgment of a candidate which matters to other people.
One thing I can’t find any sign of is anyone actually being persuaded by the speech; that is, converted. Not in the religious sense, of course, only the electoral one. That’s not a speech failure. A lot of people could have thought Romney made a superb delivery yet still left their plans to vote for Rudy or Huck unchanged. It’s similar to the way that McCain has scored a lot of points with conservatives the past six months on Iraq, life, economics, etc. – yet not to the point of making us forget why we were Mitt or Rudy voters.
I’ve seen a lot of a similar reaction to Romney’s speech; people will say it’s a great debate club moment – but they’re not suddenly abandoning their own candidate for Mitt. People aren’t quite that fickle, and conservative voters, at least, aren’t so easily led by “influential” name conservatives like Hannity or even Rush that we’re going to just obediently fall into line. |
|
[timoteotk on December 7, 2007 1:15 AM]"Medved quoted from a neutral source- Cato institute is not a 'neutral source'"
Who is "a 'neutral source'"? The Club for Growth?
/////////////////
28 November 2007
Response to Club for Growth
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=TruthSquad.ClubforG rowth
A final word about the motivation for the CFG's attacks:
" In January when Governor Huckabee announced he was forming an exploratory committee, the CFG released a white paper on his tenure in Arkansas. Governor Huckabee was the first candidate scrutinized even though he entered the race after Sen. McCain, Mayor Giuliani, Sen. Brownback, and Governor Romney.
" What was the reason the CFG thought he was worthy of moving to the head of the line? The tax burden during his time in Arkansas was better than under Mitt Romney's in Massachusetts. Likewise, his record on spending was better than Mayor Giuliani, who increased spending more than under his Democratic predecessor. So why was Governor Huckabee singled out as inconsistently conservative?
" The reason is that one of the CFG's biggest donors and organization officials is a longtime political rival of Governor Huckabee.
" In August the Club for Growth began running attack ads in Iowa on Governor Mike Huckabee. Salon.com found after checking disclosures through the IRS that the ads had been paid for by "a Little Rock neighbor and political rival of Huckabee's named Jackson T. "Steve" Stephens Jr." Not only did Stephens provide the $125,000 to Club for Growth.net, he serves as the chairman, along with his Arkansas business associate, Gary Faulkner. Stephens has contributed over $1 million to CFG.
/////////////////////
Michael Medved: AR tax growth w/ Huckabee tad better than Romney MA taxes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2d1d6b5f-7d2a-4ba4-af3 8-ce935abe2d7c%40e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
|
|
Seriously, everyone who disagrees with you is a bad pundit not to be trusted? Their analytic skills are called into question, and you believe that it would be impossible to objectively disagree?
You've found a bold universal truth that can never be argued with? Hell, even religion doesn't have that.
You should open a church with your new magic universal truth, and your amazing ability to always be right while calling everyone who is wrong, not just wrong, but possessing of untrustworthy opinions for their dissent.
Seriously, put down the pom-poms, walk away slowly, you're starting to sound like you've taken yourself way too seriously. I was surprised you didn't have a "Do you know who I am" in there.
Smug, pompous, arrogant, self-absorbed, elitist, you've pretty much covered the bases here. Nice job. |
|
Wow. Hit it out of the park, why don'tcha?! Still, I think Mitt is right about there being room for religion in public life. But religion must answer to standards of rationality, which means an expansive view on the Establishment clause must be accompanied by a tight interpretation of the Religious Test clause. True to his character, Mitt wants it both ways. He wants to sanctimoniously ingratiate himself with the American voter, but he doesn't want to have to defend the basis of that sanctimonious ingratiation.
Religious faith has a place in American civic ritual. As I have said elsewhere, it improves social cohesion, informs our souls, and helps enforce the public order. But the Founders clearly put faith in the back-seat, behind reason and the natural rights of man.
Mitt is welcome to articulate that religion makes us better human beings. Among other things, it is the sort of thing voters love to hear. But far from shielding him from rationalist inquiry, the fact he is NOT required to take an oath or affirmation to a particular religious doctrine, liberates him, and all Americans, to TALK about religious doctrine. A man's faith can be the crazy aunt in the attic or a kindly beneficent uncle. Voters have the right, even the duty, to find out which it is. Else we may get unwise, ill-conceived, nihilistic leaders. The Religious Test clause, far from prohibiting that discussion, provides the framework with which to do it. The very thing that Mitt cites to keep us from delving too deep into his philosophic grounding is precisely what permits us to do so. Because at the end of the day, he does not have to swear fidelity to any one doctrine--he just has to defend his doctrine and let the people decide. |
|
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
23 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Mike Huckabee has vaulted from nowhere into second place in the Republican presidential race, riding a burst of support from evangelicals, Southerners and conservatives, a nationwide poll showed Friday.
The surge by the former Arkansas governor has come largely at the expense of Fred Thompson, according to the national survey by The Associated Press and Ipsos. Thompson has dropped after failing to galvanize the party's right-wing core as much as some had expected.
Rudy Giuliani remains the front-runner, yet while his support long has been steady it shows signs of fraying. Huckabee's growing strength in the South has come as the former New York mayor's support there has dropped, the poll found.
|
|
is it so difficult to understand that members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints does not beleive Christ is the Lord?
An interesting quote I once heard ( not sure which Pope it was or if it happened)
The Pope said to the President of the Church "Since most protestant churches are just variants of the RC Church it seems it is going to come down to between the LDS and RC Churches as to which has the best understanding of the Bible." Not word for word of course. It was told to me sometime around 1984 or 85. |
|
Wah???
Ok, I'm trying to do what Paul suggested and reprove with love. But, darn it's hard to have you tell me what I believe. I will be willing to stand with you at the Judgement Bar and let God decide who believes that Jesus is Lord.
For the rest of you - I just have to skip the anti, anti, anti, anti Mormon posts. What are you afraid of?
By the way, the missionaries will be glad to leave you alone, but unlike our young men, you have people with bull horns using abusive and vulgar language at weddings, at our conferences, at pageants etc., including families with little children. You even have the ACLU attorneys standing there to make sure none of us deck you. We have been told by our Prophet to act as Christ would act, and not engage your filth. And we do. |
|
|
As a Southern California resident, I seem to remember a passionate Hugh pushing a candidate named Arnie...I'm feeling a deja vu here! |
|
|
|