Thursday, April 17, 2008
|
|
Huck Hits Mitt ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
4:50 PM
|
He actually talks to The Club for Growth ... about his Veep options ...
In a move he should have made before losing his presidential bid, he sat down with The Club for Growth's Nachama Soloveichik and said some newsworthy stuff:
... On Mitt Romney:
"... Mitt Romney was quick to point out the deficiencies in other candidates, but when those same deficiencies where in his own record, he didn't seem to want to acknowledge those ...
... On Joe Lieberman: "I certainly think Joe Lieberman should be a non-starter."
... He also compared his own VP aspirators to a girl being asked to the prom -- saying you don't sit around and wait for the football team to call you.
It is curious that Huckabee has decided to talk to The Club after the race ended (why not before?) ...
His feud with The Club for Growth may now be over -- but the Romney/Huck feud lives on ...
|
|
Does the LDS memberbase belive they are they only votes that matter? Qweenmum, no matter who is up for POTUS you will have millions and millions that don't support, as such with Huck's case. But what about the millions and millions that do.
What gets me is Mormons are consitantly fighting against the majority that don't belive in Mormon Doctrine. Of course it feels like everyone is a bigot because there are so many that don't belive as you do. If the millions and millions of Mormons want to be mormons, fine, it's your right. But don't be upset when the majority does not validate your beliefs.
So, don't respect Huck because he strongly opposes Mormonism. Just leave the majority of Rep. voters alone when they don't respect Mitt for his beliefs.
Although, I would have to admit that I do respect many Mormons for good values and positive influance... I just cannot respect Mormon Doctrine. Mitt seems like a good guy compared to most others. But personally, my convictions cannot lead to support. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'So pro
In order to be president, you
1. cannot be LDS'
ME: Nope. Didn't say that.
There will most likely be an LDS President, someday. The more postmodern the culture becomes, the more latitudinarian it will become, and then the fewer things there will be which will draw attention as difficulties.
All the Presidents we have had have been nominally Christian, in some vague sense. Its true that Adams and a few early ones were unitarian, and Jefferson was a deist (who used theistic language) and Lincoln was a non_member who peppered his speeches with more God-talk then probably any President.
Mormonism has only been an identified as a distinct religion for about 150 years, or so. It is not now, and has never been, in the stream of historic Christianity. Therefore, it is quite natural for there to be some resistance when moving into uncharted territory.
Probably you could see the logic of that if you weren't so enraged.
more later... |
|
Is best illustrated at the foxnews website. Look at the "Candidates" page, then click on the "Money" tab for Romney and then for Huckabee.
Calling Mitter the Quitter a "spectacular flameout" is a bit of an understatement, especially when you couple that with the fact that Huckabee came in second in the delegate count. |
|
Are you aware of any conservative boxes that the version of Romney running for President didn't check off?
"If you go down his [Romney's] list, it’s pretty much a check-off of the real hot-button concerns for gays and lesbians"
Compare:
Lowry, Rich. 29 January 2007. "The Romney Speech"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTU0NzEyZjIzMTI5Yz ZiYjgxMjY3MTM4YTIzMjY4NTA=
Here’s my take: Put aside how rambling and unfocused it was. Maybe that can be chalked up to a bad night or fatigue. But to speak for 50 minutes or so and not to talk about the Iraq war before a conservative audience at a crucial moment in that war is bizarre and just wrong and almost offensive in my view. This doesn't seem like an oversight. He went out of his way to check off every conservative box—except the one that is politically risky at the moment.
|
|
[Qweenmumof7 on April 23, 2008]"I don't agree that folks living together should get the bennies of married folks"
What's your opinion of same-sex civil unions?
///////////////
Wallsten, Peter. 25 March 2007. "Activists Remember a Different
Romney
Advocates for gay and abortion rights and the environment say the GOP
candidate misled them on his positions." _Los Angeles Times_
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/25/78/
Romney was quoted in the media that year opposing same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions. Still, after talking to Romney, some at the Log Cabin meeting thought he was sympathetic to their views on that issue, though clearly trying to navigate its touchy semantics.
“He said, ‘Call it whatever you want. Just don’t use the M-word,’ ” recalled businessman Richard Babson.
Babson also recalls Romney being asked at the meeting about a newly adopted Vermont law permitting civil unions. “It seemed to me that he was sympathetic on civil unions, that he was not quite there on marriage, but that he was also sympathetic on same-sex adoption and on gays and lesbians having families,” Babson said.
Patrick Guerriero, a prominent Log Cabin member, told the Bay Windows newspaper immediately after the meeting that Romney showed he was in agreement with the community on every major issue. “If you go down his list, it’s pretty much a check-off of the real hot-button concerns for gays and lesbians,” Guerriero said. “I do believe that, and as you know I’m a supporter of gay marriage.”
Romney won the Log Cabin endorsement.
|
|
Congratualtions!!!!!!!!! Your first post without a link! I'm so proud of you! My baby is growing up.
Now, next task: Go outside and breath. I'm heading outside rightnow with my youngest.
Have a good day:) |
|
Do you approve of these Romney views?:
‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 16, 2007
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924
GOV. ROMNEY: I, I have the same position--let me describe it, because there are two parts to it.
==
And from a legal standpoint, I would outlaw cloning to create new stem cells and I would outlaw embryo farming. I would allow, on a private basis, the use of surplus embryos, so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and likewise the existing lines. So from a legal--and I faced that in Massachusetts. I, in the bill there, I said I would continue to allow the use of surplus embryos from IVF.
==
MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, the embryos that are so-called surplus in vitro clinics are destroyed...
GOV. ROMNEY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...for research, and you support that.
GOV. ROMNEY: The term support is perhaps not the exact word I'd choose.
MR. RUSSERT: You wouldn't outlaw it.
GOV. ROMNEY: I would, I would not outlaw it. I would allow, I would allow private laboratories and private institutions--as we currently do, and as the president does as well--to use these so-called surplus or embryos to be discarded.
Let me note as well, Tim, in that regard, that, that I think before we, we move too far down that road that we establish a provision for parents to have authority over their own embryos and to have adoption procedures so that they might be able to provide these embryos, as some call them, snowflake babies to allow them to be adopted by others and to be implanted and become human beings. That's the, that's the course I'd prefer. But I would not outlaw the use of these, of these surplus embryos if the parents so directed. And, at the same time, for federal dollars I would focus it on the, the alternative methods.
|
|
Unlike you (a machine) I have actually served our country in the U.S. Navy. I'm quite sure some of the folks I served with were gay. BUT, never, never did I have a problem. They did not either. It was kept off base, off work. Do I think the gays should serve and have bennies for their lifemates? No. Just as I don't agree that folks living together should get the bennies of married folks.
You know, you need to get away from that little computer a bit more. Were you aware it's Springtime? Heavenly Father made a really cool world to go out into. Just yesterday, I saw some baby lambs and goats! I picked some flowers out of my sprouting garden, and tossed a frisbee with my kids. Outside is far better than working on a computer 24/7 monitoring the Mitt websites and blogs. The world awaits, Synth. Go forth and enjoy it! |
|
PC, do you have a problem with forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense chemical abortions?
Text from
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:NoV1UnCKz9YJ:www.evang elicalsformitt.org/massleaders/massleaders.pdf
"Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called 'morning-after pill,' which is an abortifacient"
Helman, Scott. 9 December 2005. "Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law
He reverses stand on Plan B"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/09/romney _says_no_hospitals_are_exempt_from_pill_law/
Reilly, seeking the Democratic nomination in the governor's race, took credit yesterday, as did other Democrats and reproductive rights organizations, for pressuring Romney to abandon a policy they said would have only burdened victims.
''I think we're all very happy that the administration has backed off on this," Reilly told reporters yesterday at a press conference with representatives of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. ''This administration was on a road that would have made it worse for women in that position."
Romney flips, & backs forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense morning-after abortion pill
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e6675e4-6f6e-4c84-b1a 1-5d3a743d140e%4021g2000hsj.googlegroups.com
///////////////
"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."
ConCon discussion, in
Romney a shape-shifting political opportunist e.g. on homosexuality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38cebb6b-6493-49b3-857 4-9120f8a068c0%40s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com
|
|
[Qweenmumof7 on April 23, 2008 10:00 AM]"Gays raising kids? It happens."
Are you OK with open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military?
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_ro mney_files
BW: Are you in favor of lifting the military ban against gay men and lesbians and do you agree with President Clinton’s "don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue" policy?
MR: I think the position which President Clinton reached with the concurrence of [Gen.] Colin Powell was a fair compromise and a good step and I support that. I would be surprised if it stops there. I believe that there will be change over time as the military establishment and the rank-and-file become more comfortable with the realities of sexual orientation in the military. I will support progress being made in that area as time progresses and the military and society becomes more accepting.
//////////////////////////
1939 R. T. Smallbones: "The explanation for this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and, in particular, homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany."
Igra: homosexuality a "poisoned stream" in human history
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1144986392.4048 25.109570%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Note: I currently suspect that the claim that homosexual activity played a role in the Inquisition is based on bogus anti-Catholic anti-Inquisition propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Synth protests too much! She/he/it must know something we don't, like McCain and Romney already have a deal!
I also wonder if Synth is a real person, and not a machine. I have never seen any original thought spewing forth from it.
Gays raising kids? It happens. Just like sometimes (gasp!!) Mormons raise kids. Gotta deal with what society doles out to us. What do you suggest Synth? (without using a link). go in Texas style, remove ALL kids from gay families, just because you don't agree with their lifestyle? Quick!! CALL TEXAS CPS! THERES A GAY MAN HIS HIS BOYFRIEND RAISING KIDS! Cluck cluck. Can't have that happen. Texas rangers, swat team, stand by! We're going in!
Have a great day, synth. And don't burn your circuits over this one. It ain't worth my time. |
|
|
|
Romney, cited in
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/06/nh_wo man_challenges_romney_on_gay_marriage/
There are other ways to raise kids that's fine: single
moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples
raising kids. That's the American way, to have
people have their freedom of choice....
Romney's View Of Gay Couples Having Children
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jeCzkEFx_8o
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/229199.php
Romney does seem to have a habit of glibly wrong-
footing it in an effort to pander to virtually anyone
he's speaking to. The various parts of this statement
seem hard to reconcile. If it's so wonderful this gay
woman is raising kids, why not extend marriage to
her? And if it's so important to preserve the
traditional family, why praise hers as "wonderful"
and "the American way"?
I certainly wouldn't have insulted the woman, and
I'm not suggesting Romney should have. But I keep
getting this read off Romney that his superficial
positions have absolutely no intellectual
undergirding to them. Eggshell conservativism -- the
surface is smooth and cool, but be careful not to
apply any pressure to it, else it crack and spill out a
big gooey mess.
Romney a shape-shifting political opportunist e.g. on homosexuality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38cebb6b-6493-49b3-857 4-9120f8a068c0%40s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com
|
|
[quote given by PC]"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"
To illustrate Romney's "stalwart... defense":
17 Feb 2006. _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/02/17/bishop s_dealt_setback_in_pursuit_of_gay_adoption_exemption?mode=P F
Governor Mitt Romney and a legislative leader
yesterday delivered unwelcome news to the
Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, who plan to
seek permission from the state to exclude gay and
lesbian parents from adopting children through its
social service agencies.
The governor said he was not authorized to give
such an exemption, and State Representative
Eugene L. O'Flaherty, the House chairman of the
joint committee on the judiciary, predicted little
support among lawmakers for any request by
Catholic adoption agencies for an exemption from
the state's antidiscrimination policies.
==
Meanwhile, the bishops' hope of getting help from
Romney, who is a strong opponent of gay marriage,
was dashed yesterday. Romney said that when he
read the story in the Globe yesterday morning, he
asked his legal counsel to research whether he had
the authority to exempt an organization from
regulations governing the placement of children with
same sex couples.
''My understanding is that any exemption would
require legislation and would not be something I
would be authorized to do on a personal basis," the
governor said. He did not express his own view on
the issue.
Romney & sexual orientation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=06bdb44e-7578-4dd6-833 c-8f0a00b1aa29%4025g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
"Romney, who is a strong opponent of gay marriage"
Not exactly:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38cebb6b-6493-49b3-857 4-9120f8a068c0%40s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com
|
|
|
Romney looked for judges who had a history of strength in enforcing the law. I agree with that. |
|
I will take the word of the president of Mass Citizens for Life and all of these other leaders over one disgruntled board member.
|
|
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
|
|
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. |
|
? 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.
|
|
"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."
|
|
Here is an answer from real leaders in Mass.
"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.”
|
|
[PC on April 22, 2008 10:20 AM]"BTW - I'm a gal."
Do you approve of Romney's efforts to have "diversity" on MA courts?
Nichols, Russell and Kathleen Burge. 27 April 2006. "Romney names 4
women to bench
Seen as response to call for diversity" _The Boston Globe_
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/27/romney _names_4_women_to_bench/
Governor Mitt Romney, under pressure to name
more women to the bench, yesterday nominated
three current or former prosecutors and a top official
from the Menino administration in what aides
boasted is the largest number of female candidates
ever brought forward at once.
Kathe M. Tuttman of Andover and Merita A.
Hopkins of Boston were nominated as associate
justices of the Superior Court;
==
''The governor felt he wasn't getting enough female
and minority candidates," said Romney spokesman
Eric Fehrnstrom. ''The governor is interested in
making sure that appointments to the bench, to the
extent possible, reflect the diversity of the
community at large."
==
Tuttman and Hopkins are registered Democrats.
Lyons is a Republican. Wright is registered as
unaffiliated with any political party.
==
Romney has argued that political views don't matter
when it comes to enforcing the law.
Romney's stellar judicial appointments
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9380a1ac-650e-4e62-a8a 8-cc86e06ca2a1%40q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
Romney's Judge Tuttman
Editorial of _The Washington Times_. 3 January 2008. "Down to the wire in Iowa"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080103/EDITORIAL/4 83973945
|
|
[PC on April 22, 2008 4:31 PM]"Movement leaders in Mass said he [Romney] fought their battles with them and earned their praise on life and marriage."
"Leaders" such as who?
And how much Romney $$$ did each of them or their organizations get?
http://www.cpoma.org/blog/?p=147
“Behind the empty gestures and deceptive rhetoric, Romney was not pro-life or a defender of marriage by any stretch of the imagination. He was a disaster,” said John O’Gorman, a member of the board of directors of Massachusetts Citizens For Life (MCFL), the state-wide group Romney has been deceptively claiming awarded him a pro-life leadership award. "The award Romney arranged for himself with the local Pioneer Valley Chapter was the Mullins Award for Political Leadership, not a pro-life award and not approved by MCFL’s state board of directors. We’re blowing the whistle to warn voters who are being lied to by the crowd that makes big money off the pro-life cause. Real moral conservatives must alert the voters to the ongoing deception by cash-driven, pseudo-conservative elites who’ve allied themselves with a lying politician,” added O’Gorman.
==
MCFL had considered Romney a hard-core pro-abortion politician who had no interest in meeting with them. To get the award, Romney paid $15,000 and went around MCFL’s state headquarters to deal with a willing local politician who arranged the award through a local chapter.
“MCFL was in financial difficulty when Romney’s check came in and has been reluctant to contradict him publicly,” Haskins said. “There are some very fine people associated with MCFL, but to let Romney hustle voters with this conveniently cooked-up pro-life award is a tragic mistake. It allows lawyers and consultants like
==
If Mitt Romney outruns his record in Massachusetts and buys his way into the White House it will be partly because people who know the facts did not expose this pro-life award as not much more than a dime-store rip-off.” |
|
[PC on April 21, 2008 10:01 PM]"Reagan also changed his position and most social conservatives didn't mind. Romney was always pro-life but promised not to change abortion laws in Mass.
Beyond that, Romney hasn't changed any positions."
I take it you agree with Coulter's assessment:
Coulter, Ann. 16 January 2008.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/01/16/th e_elephant_in_the_room?page=full&comments=true
I've looked and looked, and the only issue I can find
that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion.
//////////////////////////////////
David Limbaugh's ignorance.
Romney's flip-flops on immigration, minimum wage, abortion, homosexual
agenda, campaign finance reform,
gun control, LDS theology.
Tony Blankley and Michael Medved defending Huckabee against elite
conservatives.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8458206d-7aa4-4800-9a4 9-948df8f8035a%40p1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
Romney's environment flipping
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b315064c-1dd8-40a2-892 b-ae09f30cce43%40l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
Romney's flat tax flipping
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg /325636c3abbc6985
Murdock, Deroy. 4 February 2008. "Mitt's Vietnam Flip-Flop: His Most Disturbing Yet"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DeroyMurdock/2008/02/04/ mitts_vietnam_flip-flop_his_most_disturbing_yet?page=full&c omments=true&voted=5
3 February 2008. serial liar Romney claims NRA endorsement-- again
http://race42008.com/2008/02/03/romney-flips-on-guns/
|
|
|
|
In order to be president, you
1. cannot be LDS
2. Cannot be successful
3. Cannot come from a successful family
4. Cannot have a successful family.
I gotcha now.
|
|
Describe how Romney is a shill for the business wing and in the hip pocket of big business. I think it's something you like to say, but cannot explain with evidence.
Romney's policies were comprehensive, and he always emphasized all 3 parts of traditional conservatism. Movement leaders in Mass said he fought their battles with them and earned their praise on life and marriage. I never thought his message was only fiscal - he talked every day about winning the war and national security. He always emphasized the importance of families and how to strengthen them. Your claim doesn't wash.
Pro- what a snob you are to think that being born poor is the only acceptable path to the presidency! Romney paid his dues by working hard for what he accomplished.
Reagan's greatness had nothing to do with the station he was born into, but everything to do with vision and character. You're trying to elevate Huck because he's poor and claims to feel the pains of the middle class. But he has a record of higher taxes, big government and amnesty that don't help the ones he's playing to.
Sorry, Pro. I DON'T want the man who got fired for president, or the man I'd like to drink with. I want the man with the record of competence and leadership. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'Mitt is the number 1 guy. It's not just LDS supporting him.'
ME: Of course its not just LDS. Look how far Orrin Hatch went in presidential politics.
Qweenmumof7 writes: 't's a whole lot of important folks.'
ME: Yes, Mitt is a shill for the big business wing of the Republican party. He reinforces all of the negative stereotypes of the party: born to privilage, is in the hip pocket of Corporate America, his policy focus is primarily about money issues.
That is why Reagan was the change agent of the party. Born in humble means, didn't attend an Ivy league college, parents were nobodies socially, politically, culturally, and economically.
The commentator Mark Shields noted in 1996 (on the NewsHour w/Jim Lehrer, I think) that Steve Forbes reinforces all of these traditional stereotypes about Republicans, and therefore it would be a difficult general election for him.
The Dems can get away with having leaders of the party like the Kennedys (or John Kerry) because that doesn't reinforce the Democrat negative stereotypes.
In fact, Shields thought that nominating somebody like Paul Tsongas would be good for the Dems because it says, hey we can be for business too.
Reagan sent a message that the party of privilage could reach out to middle America. And, therefore his presence played against Republican stereotypes.
Leaving aside the Mormon question, Romney will be seen by many Americans as another Steve Forbes, Pete DuPont, or Nelson Rockefeller, or quite frankly George H.W. Bush.
If it weren't for Reagan's coattails Bush41 might've lost. So, knowing that, he had to go nuclear on Dukakis to help his chances. |
|
still waiting for the evidence!!! |
|
can't find evidence for your baseless assertions?What a surprise!!!! |
|
|
Perfect example of giving a man enough rope. |
|
your silence is the right answer to my last question. |
|
another one of your baseless assertions. Do you have any evidence of my ever slamming the LDS' faith? |
|
sure PC, the throwing is all coming from one direction that is why you are calling people bigots and taliba!!
As for slamming others, who is sending out young people to go door to door telling people that all traditional Christians are apostates to the teachings of Christ? |
|
|
Are you still a pedophile apologist? Are you still slamming the LDS faith, but defending the FLDS perverts? |
|
Yes, Mormons believe that our Church is true. Isn't that the point of belonging to a religion? Truth? I don't know of any religions that don't think their faith is the right one.
But we don't go around slamming others and demanding that we be the arbiters or who can be called "Christian" or not. |
|
|
The throwing is only coming from one direction. All the LDS folks here have ever done is try to defend their faith. There is an evangelical taliban in place to make sure Mormons know their place. And it makes me sick. Mormons never wanted this election to be about religion, Huck made sure it was. |
|
claim that all other Christian denominations are apostates of the true Christian faith. If you enjoy being called and apostate Christian, then please support the LDS and help it along on its mission to defame traditional (all Chistians who are not LDS) Christians. |
|
Huckabee's comments and agenda have absolutely nothing to do with who could best serve our Nation. It has to do with religion.
Just look at the comments on this board. Same subject..again and again...no matter the topic.
They amount to folks throwing the Bible in each other's faces...each claiming Christianity. No respect shown.
What does that have to do with politics? Is that how we choose a SECULAR position? Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
Jesus is not on this ballot.
Attend the Church of your choice, study the issues and see who is in line with your understanding of the Constitution. Pepper it a little with your own personal morality and endorse the one who will be able to serve the USA best.
We need some great leaders in government. I'm personally praying that we get them.
|
|
Thanks for clearing that up for me, now I know I'm not really Christian - whew!
BTW - I'm a gal.
More Evangelical Taliban sightings, folks. |
|
PC, Sir,
To so simply explain why LDS is not accepted as Christians:
The Book of Mormon is NOT another testiment of Jesus Christ.
Why?
-The Book of Mormon has had many corrections throughout the years to conform with socicity.
-The Holy Bible (in which you also belive) tells of the no-no's of additional doctrine.
Those are just two. The book of mormon is FALSE Doctrine.
Most likely you will take offense but this is understanable. It is hard to discard things you hold so dearly. I would be the same. If you still claim to be Christian, fine, because this is on your judgement, not mine.
|
|
I hope they do to. They will learn how much influence they don't have. The anti-Mitt ad failed miserably, with McCain even joking about it, without slamming them too hard. You're right, Romney is more visible now.
Let's keep our chins up! There are more of us (rational conservatives) than there are of them (bigot brigage)! |
|
|
But I don't have to. This site proves to me that religious bigotry still exists in the eyes of a handfull of radicals in the South. Mitt is the number 1 guy. It's not just LDS supporting him. It's a whole lot of important folks. I pray that if Mitt is the veep choice, that Huck and his minions bolt the party. It will just prove to me and the rest of the world how petty he is, and how uninformed the rest of you are. |
|
PC writes: 'Pro - again, why? I didn't read your link, I don't have time.'
ME: If you don't have time to read this link:
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-m itt-romney-cant-solve-his-mormon.html
...then how is it you would have time to read my post? Stuart Rothenberg is a well-respected political analyst, not an evangelical spokesperson (not even a partisan). Therefore you can read it without worrying about relevent prejudice.
PC writes: 'What is wrong with the public thinking Mormons are Christian? Don't you see how silly that is? Why in the world do you care?'
ME: Read the link and learn, please.
PC writes: 'Got news for you, Pro. I'm 100% Christian and 100% LDS. And there's not a thing you can do about it.'
ME: For purposes of these discussions I do not personalize whom is Christian, and whom is not. The distinctive conceptual point being made here is that Mormon-ISM is not Christian-ITY.
ChristianITY (historically speaking) is those groups who confess the Ecumenical or Universal Creeds:
http://aibi.gospelcom.net/articles/creeds.htm
Were I so inclined, on the basis of certain criteria I might argue that such-n-such evangelical person (Joe Schmo)is not in fact personally a Christian. But, that would be a different evaluation than assessing whether the group he claimed to be part of was *formally* a "Christian" church.
"Christian", in the sense I just used it, is synonymous with Orthodox -- i.e. formally creedal, affirming the Creeds linked.
As to reality, an individual Christian congregation, say, "Christ The King Lutheran Church" on Maple Avenue, might --for the sake of argument-- be full of phony Christians. But nevertheless, on paper, it would be a congregation which was part of ChristianITY, because it is Orthodox. |
|
Qweenmum is wondering whether HUCKPAC Will support a Mormon for any office. It remains to be seen.
We know that there are Mormon candidates who are supported by some evangelicals. The problem is the presdiency which is a whole new ball game. There are some who think that elevating Romney will help the LDS Church, and they CAN'T have that, now can they? So they do silly things like the anti-Mitt ad.
Gee, I'm so glad that backfired. |
|
Qweenmumof7: 'Will Huck? If a well qualified Mormon from arkansas runs for GOP office, will he get $$ from Huckpac? Will Huck support him?'
ME: I don't see any reason why not.
Qweenmumof7: 'Doubt it...'
ME: What if one does? What will be your reaction?
Qweenmumof7: '...as many of his supporters (including huck) has proven to me they are the Evangalical Taliban.'
ME: It is doubtful that you've tried to understand the principle involved here. (I don't mean that disrespectfully.) Likely, all this back and forth on the 'net has made tempers run high. When our emotions are inflamed our thinking is less effective.
Rothenberg has no stake in the matter. I suspect he is a Jew, but I couldn't find confirmation of that on the web.
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-m itt-romney-cant-solve-his-mormon.html
Qweenmumof7: 'They are the only ones who can decide who is a Christian and who is not. A LDS candidate will not fall into that narrow little box they have made.'
ME: Are you saying that the LDS members of Congress didn't get any votes from evangelicals? I think for your wholesale prejudice theory to work you'd have to show the trend across the elections for Mormon members of Congress. |
|
I didn't read your link, I don't have time.
What is wrong with the public thinking Mormons are Christian? Don't you see how silly that is? Why in the world do you care?
Qweenmum is right - there is an evangelical Taliban that wants to control who is and who is not entitled to be "Christian", and who is entitled to be president, and who is not, based on their religion.
Got news for you, Pro. I'm 100% Christian and 100% LDS. And there's not a thing you can do about it.
You're going to have to decide whether you can support a Mormon VP. Good luck, let your conscience be your guide. |
|
|
They had their chance, now kindly go away! |
|
I have a special needs child. I'll support whatever means necessary to find a cure.
Otherwise, I normally ignore your posts, and now see I need to be even more viligant in doing so. And what's with the links? Have'nt you ever used original thoughts? Or must you take the huck talking points and post them here? Just wondering. Don't bother answering. I dont read your posts much anyway. |
|
PC writes: 'Romney was leading with evangelicals until Huck played the religion card. Even then, the evangelical vote was split pretty evenly between them. So apparently he didn't have that big of a problem with s. evangelicals.'
ME: Many Americans often tend to compartmentalize their various "lives". Bill Clinton, of course, one of the most famous compartmentalizers.
(Some would argue that the Lewinsky matter simply confirmed something deeply rotten in Clinton that many already suspected. Iow, his serial philandering {rather than a trivial distraction} actually revealed the real psyche of the man.)
That some evangelicals have not thought through the nature of this problem, and have chosen to "compartmentalize" their lives, doesn't mean it isn't a rational problem for those persons who have thought about it.
Someday there will be a serious POTUS candidate who will be an avowed atheist, and someday there will also be an uncloseted homosexual who will also be a serious POTUS candidate --and they might even have good policy positions.
Critics of people who oppose such candidates will not understand the great psychological burden of those who are opposing. The critics will simply denounce such persons as bigots.
Rothenberg...
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-m itt-romney-cant-solve-his-mormon.html
...rightly and carefully, notes that the reluctance, in this case, is not raw prejudice, but rather is founded on a matter of sophisticated nuance. |
|
|
|
PC writes: 'Pro - why? Why must evangelicals want it made clear to the public that Mormonism is not Nicenian Christianity?'
ME: Because, the general public, not being religiously literate, would assume that the LDS/Mormons are "just another Christian denomination" -- i.e., distinct from other Christians in minor ways like Presbyterians are distinct from Lutherans.
But, of course, those who are religiously literate know that religious groups who do not affirm the classic ecumenical creeds are not part of the historic stream of Christianity, viz., not "orthodox".
Anyway, all Evangelicals are not concerned about this issue, as is evidenced by those that supported Romney. But, probably they have not fully considered the peculiar nature of the problem.
But, since you asked "why" it is a problem, the well-known political analyst Stuart Rothenberg (so far as I know, not an evangelical) explains the why in crisp easy to understand logic:
'Why Mitt Romney Can't 'Solve' His Mormon Problem',By Stuart Rothenberg
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/why_mitt_ romney_cant_solve_his.html |
|
[Qweenmumof7 on April 19, 2008 7:16 PM]"Yes, it would be wrong. So long as.... 4. He's a good employee."
What's your position on the killing of embryonic preborn human life for research purposes?
Mishra, Raja. 14 June 2002. "Romney endorses stem cell research, is silent on cloning" Boston Globe
http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jun2002/USRomneyEndorses StemCellResearch.html
Romney spoke at a Brandeis University-hosted
forum on biomedical research. He endorsed
embryonic stem cell research, saying the
controversial science might one day help treat his
wife's multiple sclerosis in addition to numerous
other degenerative diseases.
==
Romney spoke extensively about his position on
stem cell research, which also involves embryo
destruction.
''I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and
fight for stem cell research,'' he said, adding, ''I'd be
happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though
I don't know if I could budge him an inch.''
|
|
[Qweenmumof7 on April 19, 2008 7:16 PM]"Yes, it would be wrong. So long as.... 4. He's a good employee."
Do you support passage of Barney Frank's Employment Non-Discrimination Act?
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_ro mney_files
BW: Do you support the federal lesbian and gay civil rights bill that would ban anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit?
MR: This is Barney Frank’s legislation?
BW: This is not just employment, but also housing, public accommodations and credit.
MR: I am not fully aware of that bill, so I would need to study that more fully. I am aware of the legislation that Barney Frank proposed [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and do support that and would vote in favor of that.
I also, philosophically, support efforts to ban discrimination in housing. The particulars of the bill you’re speaking about I have not studied, so I shouldn’t state a position. Philosophically, I support efforts to remove discrimination from the workplace, from housing, from education and so forth.
Romney for & anti- outlawing discrimination over sexual orientation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=06bdb44e-7578-4dd6-833 c-8f0a00b1aa29%4025g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
|
|
why was he officially classified a RINO? That is - Republican in Name Only in case you don't know. Why did he say he was more liberal on gay rights than Ted Kennedy? Further, he shirked the Republican name at one point calling himself an independent rather than a Republican like Reagan. What? He doesn't want to be associated with Reagan, but he said at the debate he was sure he would be endorsed by Reagan - strange that authenticity issue re-emerges time and time again.
Another thing, you can't have it both ways, either all the evangelicals supported Huckabee and that's the reason he won despite his lack of funds, or other candidates won some of the evangelical vote, and Huckabee must have a broader appeal than you acknowledge.
In a nutshell, Romney is a RINO unable to win votes without money and power, and Huckabee has a broad appeal and can win votes without a bucket of money. Crystal clear! |
|
Why must evangelicals want it made clear to the public that Mormonism is not Nicenian Christianity? (BTW _ The LDS church has said MANY times that they do not believe in the Nicene Creed - most recently, Gordon B. Hinckley within the past year.)
So what. Don't you see how silly you are to demand such a thing? You are merely proving the point that some evangelicals (you?) base their vote entirely on religion. Conservative values - not so much.
Romney was leading with evangelicals until Huck played the religion card. Even then, the evangelical vote was split pretty evenly between them. So apparently he didn't have that big of a problem with s. evangelicals.
Reagan also changed his position and most social conservatives didn't mind. Romney was always pro-life but promised not to change abortion laws in Mass.
Beyond that, Romney hasn't changed any positions. But Huck sure has. Amnesty, taxes, foreign policy, etc. No philosophical core to that guy. No moral fiber either. He's not above lying or questionable ethics. I noticed that Romney isn't on the top ten list of most corrupt politicians, so I'll take Romney's core over Huck's any day. And he doesn't even have to run under a "Christian Leader" ad. His action speak for themselves, and so do Huck's.
|
|
|
Huckabee has spoken as a surrogate for McCain on several occasions - CNN with Wolf last Thursday evening, Gretta (Fox) last Thursday evening, Fox and Friends this morning, and Morning Joe (MSNBC) this morning. He has announced he will be campaigning with McCain in AR Friday and later in other locations. I'm sure that McCain will call on Romney, Huckabee, and others to campaign on his behalf. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'Without the Western United States (and yes, even the Mormon Vote) McCain loses.'
ME: The problem with Romney gets confusing because it is multi-layered.
Its true there are those evangelicals who are concerned that elevating a Mormon to the Presidency could have a confusing effect on society.
Orthodox Christians (particularly evangelicals) want it made plain to the American public that Mormonism is not Nicenian Christianity.
Its really that simple.
Mormon leadership needs to stand up and unequivocally state either that the historic creeds of the Church are in error, and therefore the Mormon Church rejects them, OR stand up and confess and whole-heartedly embrace those Creeds as accurately reflecting what the Holy Scriptures teach.
Now, if you made it this far, the other problem with Romney is his apparant lack of a philosophical core. Iow, even if he were a Southern Baptist he'd still have problems with evangelicals.
What do I mean? I mean the difference between Huckabee and Romney on the pro life issue, for example, is that Huckabee has pro life "conviction", Romney has a pro life "position". The same could be said about the 2nd amendment. (McCain has the same problem, but Romney's shift is recent.)
Anyway, I doubt that the pragmatic business man Romney trully understands the distinction. He is used to retooling to adapt to new problems. And, of course, he had to. Business persons cannot afford to be ideological.
They have to keep an eye on what works. If something isn't selling a new marketing strategy must be adopted.
But social issues expose our true souls to the public. Publically remarketing on this issue is not where one wants to be.
It is just obvious to truly deeply pro life people that those who are accepting of abortion are either indifferent to evil, or have a defect in their ability to reason on this matter. |
|
Qweenmumof7 writes: 'Pro Without Utah, we'd be kissing John Kerry goodbye after 4 years.'
ME: Agreed. The Republican electoral map has to begin with the old confederacy, border-south states, and the cowboy west. This is because the Democrats currently have a lock on all the metro centers, and especially in coastal states.
If Mormons en masse voted for the Democrats (something I find hard to imagine) they would be not only sending a message to Republican party, but they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Why?
Presumably Mormon ethics are more principled for the average Mormon than they are for Harry Reid, or excuse me, Mitt Romney. Orrin Hatch, and his work for SoCon issues, has been highly regarded by most evangelicals that I know (at least in the past).
And, I suspect, most evangelicals would agree with the conservative grassroots movement to get Jeff Flake (a fiscal hero by most accounts) on to the House appropriations committee. So, its not a blanket prejudice against all Mormons, always. |
|
I posted on the other thread that I am not the only one to notice that since the ET's tried their little 'petition', that we've seen even MORE of Romney. I see something from him, about him everyday now. He's either giving speeches on the econ, or out fund raising. I think the petition got McCains dander up, and now we have the john and Mitt show almost 24/7.
Glad to see Huck out finally trying to raise some cash for McCain. I don't see how $1.98 will help, but at least it's a start. |
|
Romney was great and I hope he's advising McCain. He seems to be out there a lot for him. There isn't anyone better who has a national presence like Romney.
I think Huck went for broke with the anti-Mormon stuff because he had nothing to lose. He thought taking Romney out for the others might get him a vp spot if nothing else. This whole thing has been a great big ego trip for him. He probably has no idea how unelectable he really is. Hence HUCK PAC.:) |
|
McCain camp won't confirm it, but I too would assume that Huck would join him on home turf. But outside of that, Rove has adivsed McCain to keep the photo ops with huck to a bare minimum, and not speak much about him. Wonder why?
IMO, it's about time Huck did something constructive for the party, and not keep at this nitpicky stuff against Romney. To be veep, you don't have to be best friends. And actually, I'd feel much better if the Veep had some differing views than the president. To have one's lips firmly superglued onto McCain's backside as Huck did, is not a good thing. All you have then is a yes man we can't trust. I can't trust huck.
Recent econ speeches by McCain, and even backed up by romney suggest that Romney is strongly adivising McCain on the economy. About the only thing Huck can advise McCain on is the proper way to bread and fry a squirrel. |
|
|
I would explain his posts where he reveals that he thinks adult sex with a 12 year old is not evil. Then maybe people won't think he is a pedophile apologist or worse. He is lashing out at me and the LDS church because I took exception to his view, and because I think he's dangerous. |
|
McCain is going to Arkansas this week and I expect that Huck is invited, but the McCain camp hasn't comfirmed it. Beyond that, where?
Rove is right, Huck as VP would double McCain's troubles. McCain has to use him selectively, if at all.
|
|
PC has alot of trouble keeping to factual information. |
|
|
McCain is not steering clear of Mike Huckabee. It has been announced that they will be campaigning together in the south in the next few weeks. |
|
Without Utah, we'd be kissing John Kerry goodbye after 4 years.
Without the Western United States (and yes, even the Mormon Vote) McCain loses. |
|
PC writes: 'Pro You've got some big ifs in there.'
ME: Not really.
In one sense ANY "if" is big because it is a counterfactual --which depends upon innumerable variables. Any "if" about Romney would be just as big. But, given past trends and general inclinations of Republican voters I think my scenario is highly plausible.
All hangs on South Carolina.
South Carolina is the gateway primary to the old Confederacy. The winner there is in a very strong position to sweep the South provided that winner has appeal otherwise. McCain won South Carolina with a coalition of moderates, Hawks, and crossovers. That helped him immensely in Florida, but not so much elsewhere.
Huckabee came back and won the bulk of Dixie on SuperTuesday in spite of McCain's win in S.C. If Huckabee had won S.C. its hard not see (unless one doesn't want to see) that an S.C. win would've made Huck much more formidable.
Being from Arkansas with the S.C. stamp of approval surely would've carried much weight across the South, especially where it really counts, TEXAS.
Huckabee placed a close second in the face of some very strong headwinds (mostly from the right-wing literati). |
|
|
I think the ET influence is extrememly small. With Huck as the ringleader, the anti-Mitt smear ad showed that they are basically irrelevant. The GOP is rejecting Huck and his fan club of anti-Mormons. Notice how Huck, even with his "BIG ANNOUNCEMENT" last week of his HUCKPAC, didn't get much media play. He's nowhere to be found. And McCain is sure steering clear of him. |
|
If a well qualified Mormon from arkansas runs for GOP office, will he get $$ from Huckpac? Will Huck support him? Doubt it, as many of his supporters (including huck) has proven to me they are the Evangalical Taliban. They are the only ones who can decide who is a Christian and who is not. A LDS candidate will not fall into that narrow little box they have made.
To paraphrase: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle, than to elect a LDS man or woman to a high office. |
|
Huck flip-flopped on many issues. Taxes, amnesty, Iraq, Iran. He is not conservative, but a populist for bigger government and will not hesitate to raise taxes if he thinks it's for a good reason, as he did numerous times in Arkansas. It gave people hope, though.
He is particulary bad on the economy - His idea of stimulating the economy was to build a major highway. LOL
We cannot afford to entertain the idea of Huck in 4 years, or 8, or 12. He's not a good candidate if you believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and national security. He thinks we broke something in Iraq (bet the troops love that one), and for talking to Iran.
He does not believe in the court system, as he pardon 1000 criminals. He does not believe in unity, but division within the party, and he has so much ethical baggage that he would sink the whole party.
He's not worthy to carry the GOP banner - not now, not ever. Why do you think McCain is staying as far away from him as possible? |
|
|
Mike Huckabee has been proven to be an outstanding leader that doesn't quit when the going gets tough. He doesn't flip flop on the issues which shows that he has strong convictions. He has many supporters STILL backing him, and will continue to do so as long as he is for faith, family, freedom, life, and traditional marriage. We will be seeing a lot of Mike Huckabee in the near future. He's created HuckPac. He cares about getting others elected that are for the same values that Huckabee and his supporters care about. He could be the next VP...and he will most defintely be President of the U.S. one day. |
|
Just for the record, if you give the KEYNOTE address at a anti-mormon convention sposored by YOUR CHURCH, then I have the right to determine your Anti-Mormon. Especially when you refuse to release that address. Normally the folks speaking at those types of venue are not preaching on the virtues of the restored gospel, but are preaching on how evil we LDS are. By the way, this convention was in Salt Lake City - and we were told by our leaders to be good hosts, and not argu with them that came to tear us apart. Word is, several from that very convention took the time to actually learn more about the faith, and joined. but I can't verify that rumor.
by the way, the Speaker who gave that Keynote? That would Mr. Huckabee. |
|
I don't know about qweenmum, but I am one LDS person whu doesn't appreciate the way Huckabee used religion against Romney. He played on the bigotry of some in the evangelical community - enough to shut Romney out and give us McCain. And he was perfectly aware that he was doing so, indeed it was his strategy. It was his only shot to gain traction, as he was an unattractive candidate up to that point.
I don't hate him personally because I don't know him, but I hate what he stands for (bigotry, division, deception, and lack of character) and I want to make sure that he never has another opportunity to divide the party.
And this is only one flaw - he has many more - too many to count. Qweenmum is right, he's not to be trusted. |
|
|
Yes, the name means I'm a mom, but now it's 8. All my kids are adopted through Foster Care. We adopt the ones that can't go home. I have 2 siblings groups and 2 'single' adoptions. 4 are hispanic, 2 are mixed Hispanic and African American and 2 are African American. They range in age from 3 to 14. My husband is a wonderful man. He's my second husband, as my first husband was gay (married very young, found out before we had kids). My 5 daughters are princess, my 3 sons are princes' and my sweet husband is the King. Hence the name. Thanks for asking. |
|
I do not respect him. There is a difference.
My first husband was gay. Is he any less a child of our Heavenly Father than I am? I've made my choices, and he has made his. THAT is what we are held accountable for. I would not marry him again, just as I won't trust huck again.
. |
|
Posted by Qweenmumof7:
As LDS, we are taught the act of homosexuality is wrong. BUT the people involved are still our brothers and sisters, and it is not ours to judge them, perscue them and keep them out of socieity.
------
Correct me if I am wrong, but saying that homosexuality is wrong is a judgement, is it not?
Also,
If you go back and read what you write you are just as judgemental as Huck. You bash just as much as Huck, and it seems you are a very angry woman. Now of course I expect a response back in your defence, rightfully so, but that does not change the fact that you sound bitter.
Also, I would ask, please be careful when calling people anti-mormon's. For example, there are those who don't like the religion or the people who belive it, and there are those who do not belive in the doctrine. Those who don't belive in the doctrine don't hate the people. So call them Anti-Book of Mormon.
I would go into detail on how Mormon Doctrine is faulty but this is not the correct place.
In ending, I would just like to pass on to you Qweenmum that you come across as a hypocrite and
spew a quite a bit of hate and insults. If you stand up for LDS and say they are good and honest people, and you call yourself one, then start proofreading what you write. |
|
|
Mitt can't hunt or is it he is no longer a life long hunter having been a life long hunter during his primary campaign. The story of Mitt changes so often even faithful followers like me can't keep up. It reminds me of Obama's defense of Wright - he heard the remarks, he did not hear the remarks, he heard them but has excuses of why he did not think he heard them. It must be Harvard Law School. They skipped to teach Obama and Mitt a lesson about authenticity - that quality voters can't define, but can recognize when it is missing in a candidate. Mitt like Obama has the same predicament - lots of money and media access that can't buy authenticity or trust with vital demographics. |
|
You've got some big ifs in there.
Why do you think talk radio went nuclear on Huck? I mean, come on they did it for a reason! Because of his record, which on it's face was questionable even if you ignore CFG's take. And because of his shabby campaign tactics. They didn't like his slimy hit on Mitt or his use of religion.
And he didn't help himself with all the embarrassing gaffes and foreign policy blunders, either. He was pro-amnesty and a tax raiser. Not to mention the pardons and everything else.
Huck had little appeal beyond the segment of evangelicals who vote on religion. He had no shot- he was nothing more than a media creation bored with the status quo and looking to help the GOP choose a real humdinger they could shoot at later. |
|
The conservative intelligentsia (media, and special interest 527s like CFG) really did a number on Mike Huckabee. They exaggerated and distorted his record and his platform grotesquely beyond recognition, and decontextualized it so it would mean what they said it meant.
Patrick Ruffini is wrong. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/3e361230-a9d8-4d02-8 9da-b74fcc04dced
Huckabee did "have a shot." Huckabee almost certainly would've won South Carolina had this right-wing media "nuking" not been launched (even in spite of Thompson's interference).
Had Huckabee won SC McCain's campaign would've went on life support. And also, had Huckabee won South Carolina he almost certainly would've run the table in the South on SuperTuesday (including for sure Oklahoma, and highly likely Missouri).
He may not have won Florida, but if he'd won S.C. he would've been competitive there. A McCain finish of third or lower (in Florida) would've put him in the position of probably having to drop out.
The SuperTuesday southern sweep would've probably fueled and even larger Kansas rout, and decisive (plus 50%) Louisiana victory, and a very good chance for a Virginia win --followed by the big red enchilada, TEXAS.
Romney couldn't have won a single state from the Old confederacy (not one), nor border states either, except Maryland.
Romney could've only won blue states and the Mountain west. |
|
|
You are so funny, it is no fun around here without you. |
|
Go to Fox news website, they have a good piece on what the people think the odds are for the veep spot.
Romney is in the top group of 5, with 5 to 1 odds. NO one has better odds.
Huck is on the bottom with 40 to 1 odds.
It is not just the Mittwits who think Mitt has a good chance and that Huck has zero chance. It seems that just about everybody believes that.
Huck by his own actions have made himself politicaly radioactive. He rode a very narrow wave of support to a not so lofty height. Any polictical momentum he may have had has long since dissapated. I think that at this point, he only serves as a distraction to the coming election.
I also believe that he understands this. Why stay in? Whatever the reason is it NOT for the good of the GOP or the nation. For the good of all he should just declare himself out of consideration and devote his energy to getting the GOP ticket elected. |
|
|
Mitt can't pack Hucks lunch. For starters, Mitt does not have the recipe for Fried Squirrel, and secondly, Mitt has the pocket change to actually BUY his own lunch! |
|
AFTER he slams Romney he says, "oh well, it's water under the bridge." Ha, ha. He does that all the time. After the well-planned question to the NYT reporter, he says oh, sorry! didn't mean anything . . .
He's still festering about Romney, and he can't stand that Romney is chummy McCain when he was the one who did all the back-side kissing.
In all of Huckabee comments about Romney there is a seething jealousy under the surface that is not hard to see. Lots of snarky, rude comments. It's pretty clear that Huck is far from being over Romney.
Romney is all over the place working for McCain. Interviews galore on TV. And he hasn't said one word about Huckabee that was not as gracious as can be. That's one reason why he's my guy - class. |
|
Huck hits Romney? If that's a hit then Romney supporters are pretty darn thin skinned.
All Gov Huckabee said was that the animosity wasn't just b/w he and Mitt - it was also with McCain, Brownback, Thompson,...
And that Mitt would not admit that he suffered some of the same deficiencies he accused others of - and by the way... that's true.
Also of note is that he said it is water under the bridge and that he will support the party whomever is selected VP. |
|
"Romney has become Huckabee's personal anti-Christ."
Right on!
What's funny to me is how Huckabee is now all folksy with the Club For Growth, after calling them multiple times the "Club for Greed."
to vote for your favorite VP pick, go here....
http://romneyveepwatch.blogspot.com/
http://romneyveepwatch.blogspot.com/
http://romneyveepwatch.blogspot.com/ |
|
PC:
Huck made his campaign ALL ABOUT RELIGION - so it was perfectly fair to ask him about it.
Tadpole:
He never shied away from religion, but it was the media that made it all about religion. His introductions more often than not included 'Former Baptist Minister..' to paint him as a religious nut - despite the fact he governed a state for over 10 years.
PC:
Huck would never win anything other than the south. He just has no appeal anywhere else.
Tadpole:
Generalizations such as this have not real meaning. Where is Iowa again? Where is Kansas? |
|
PC:
He called himself the "Christian Leader"
Tadpole:
In one ad there was text that said "Christian Leader". He was honest in that his faith defined him - if your faith does not define you then of what value is it?
The ad also quoted time from 2005 saying he was one of America's best governors.
In it he says "Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics..."
Sounds like my kind of guy - maybe principles don't matter to you.
PC:
...compared himself to Jesus
Tadpole:
That's just lame - the only comparison he made was of making much from little, in reference to his campaign budget, as Jesus did with the five loaves and 2 fish. You can't be serious about that.
PC:
...divided social conservatives by dissing Mormons
Tadpole:
First let me say that I don't agree with the way that Gov Huckabee handled all of this, but asking a question about the Mormon faith that is true is not 'dissing Mormons'. That's like saying I'm dissing blacks if I say that 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers. It might be an uncomfortable fact, but it is a fact none the less.
Dividing social conservatives? Get real. If bringing to light facts about the faith of a candidate causes voters to question that candidate's qualifications for office then so be it.
The constitution said that there is no religious test to run for office, not that it should not be considered by voters. Would you vote for a candidate that practiced a faith involving sacrificing cats every other day to a god made of licorice?
PC:
...said he wanted to change the constitution to be more in line with God's laws.
Tadpole:
His point was that we ought not try to change religion to match man's laws, if anything, if the Constitution is to be changed it should be changed in accordance with God's laws. |
|
|
|
It won't do any good. Romney is everywhere on TV campaigning for McCain. And he's doing a mighty fine job of it. Just look at this clip and see if anyone else can bolster McCain on the economy like Romney can.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24204104/
Where's Huck? I hear McCain is going to Arkansas this week, but no one knows it Huck is invited. Surely he must be, but McCain is keeping it very quiet. He simply doesn't need any more Huck baggage than necessary. |
|
I'm going to scream if:
I hear one more Mike Huckabee supporter try to argue that Huck is a superior candidate to Mitt simply because Huck did okay despite spending far less than Mitt.
Here's the brutal fact:
When you've got millions of ultra-emotional Evangelicals who consider it a religious duty to vote for one of their own-- who the hell needs money?
THINK ABOUT IT HUCK SUPPORTERS. THEN THINK ABOUT IT AGAIN.
Then try and grasp this last fact:
Pastor Mike's biggest competition in the race was a member of the Mormon Church, a minority religion that millions of Evangelicals have been taught from their childhood to utterly despise.
Again, who the hell needs money? |
|
Romney dropped out and urged his delegates to go for McCain for 2 reasons. 1 - he knew the party needed to be united and McCain was going to get the nom. 2 - he knew what we all knew: McCain is more conservative than Huckabee. It was nearly unanimous opinion that Huck was the worst choice of the 3 remaining candidates.
The reason Romney said he and Huck were splitting the "conservative" vote was because most of the votes Huck was taking away from Romney were based on religion. Those folks didn't want a Mormon, and they did want an evangelical. If Huck had been out of the picture, Romney and McCain would have pretty evenly split those votes, probably putting Romney over the top.
Romney really did lose because of religion.
|
|
When my son was 8, he came home from school and told me that a few kids in his class were telling him how evil Mormons were and blah, blah, blah - they learned all about it at their church. This was my first knowlegde that other churches actively preached against my LDS faith, and used precious Sabbath Day worship services to do so.
As a preacher, Huck has been a major participant in this sort of behavior. He was a main speaker at a decidedly anti-Mormon SBC convention held in SLC no less, designed to stick it to the LDS church. They had books, videos, etc and were there specifically to sow division in the community.
Huck is still at it, trying to divide social conservatives. First, the not-so-innocent question to the NYT reporter, then the Christian Leader and floating cross ads, and now the anti-Mitt ad put forth by a bunch of anti-Mormon Huck followers.
I don't think a man like that deserves the honor of carrying the GOP banner, not as our nominee or anything else. Qweenmum is right - dog catcher is just about the right fit for him.
Why would we choose a man whose mission is division through deception? We wouldn't. Huck could never in a million years unify the party. |
|
|
as the vp candidate, he still will support GOP. That is one of the main reasons he dropped out of the Presidential race, and stating to campaign for MCcaine. Huck just stayed in just showing that Huck is only for HUCK AND NOT WHAT IS BEST OVERALL!!!! |
|
I din't mean to give the impresion that i thought that most Evangelicals are biased against Mormons. On the contrary, at least in the northwest, my sense is that many Evangelicals are aware of how petty the actions of some of their brethern appear, and they are not comfortable with that.
To most people this is a small issue in life.
But I guess to their leaders it takes on agreater significance.
BTW does your name Queenmumof7 refer to the number of your children? If so,kudos to you. My brother has 7 chidern also,and i know how much work and conmitment that takes, I wish you luck and strength. |
|
Romney has much more appeal to the electorate in general that Huck does. I listened to your reasons for not liking Mitt and i must say you sound much like a democrate.
Class warfare is a tactic used by liberals and is generaly rejected by conservatives. Big business and evil corperations. Oh my. I dont think that line goes over very well with rank and file conservaties.
Another reason why conservatives are wary of Huck. |
|
You seem to be be stuck on this "authentic" thing. Dont you realize that most people think Huck is no more than a used car salesman. If you like him fine. Im concerned with winning the election.
I have asked repeatedly just what Huck can bring to the ticket that McCain doesn't already have. No one seems to have any idea what help he can be.
H |
|
Here's a clue to growth on the LDS Church. Where ever there is a LDS temple, there are significant numbers of members in that area, to support temple attendence. We don't build churches and Temples in the hopes that they will come. The membership is already there, and will be attended by the membership in that area. Another not-well known factor is that all church buildings and Temples are debt free. A building in the LDS church is not built until it is completly paid for. Some non LDS church leaders don't like it that our clergy is a lay clergy - not paid. Others don't like it because most of the membership lives the law of tithing. A lot of it does stem from Jelousy. Our doctrine gets twisted up so much by those not of the faith, even the most knowledgeable scriptorians don't recognize it! We're often told (even on TH blogs) about what we 'believe'. But the sentance is never finished. Or it's out of context. If I said "Three days ago, my brother died. I saw it. it was awful. But then today, raised up from the dead a few and I talked to him everyday now." You might think I was a nutter. but in the context of Mary in the bible, it makes perfect sense.
There are many more evangalicals who are NOT anti mormon, than those that are. The very few anti mormons are really just a few with very loud voices. On a whole, we have a respect for one another and often work together. A few, like Huck, are so anti mormon, they can't see straight, and every chance they get, they MUST say something that is aimed at our hearts, families and souls. I know he sounds innocent, but he chooses his words carefully, and we know the lines. All it does is drive folks to us. Just ask my Bishop. He's a former Southern Baptist preacher, who was investigating the LDS church to write a book on us. I now call that precious man Bishop. |
|
for my family, that would be 150 a year. 150 a year is 3 months of movies (we go once a month only), or 3 evenings of taking the family out for dinner (we take the family out just once a month), one of my son's soccer team fees. (I have 3 sons. Which one does not get to play?) 2 month's of pre-school for my 4 yr old who i too young for kindergarten, but too old to watch Sesame Street. Or, I could cut back on clothing for the kiddos. I spend about 150 a year on underwear for the clan. I guess they could do without. 150 is a day at the zoo. A rare outing in my family, but one we go to just the same. 150 would pay for the new slide my kids want for the backyard. 150 is the water needed this summer to fill up the above-ground pool, and keep it full. 150 is my daughters girls camp fee, plus the equipment she'll need for her first year as as beehive. 150 will pay for the dress my other daughter will wear next fall, for her 8 yr old birthday and baptisem. 150 is about what we spend in seeds and seedlings for the garden we plant, so we can can the 'fruits of our labor' and enjoy them the rest of the year.
ANY tax increase is a huge burden on my family. It's just 150 to you, but it means much more to us. |
|
I'll tell you what it is about Romney that is so objectionable -
1. He is not authentic; he changes with the wind.
2. He has demonstrated that he thinks money and influence can money him whatever he wants. Many see him as ruthless in this regard.
3. He clearly promotes his own pocket book and that of other big business associates ahead of the interests of the American people.
4. He will ship more jobs overseas and eliminate more of our manufacturing base.
5. He will put corporate interests ahead of our national security.
6. He does not connect with the middle-class voter, and that would be a disaster in a general election.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. By the way, Huckabee supporters are not the only ones who have trouble with Romney - even the commentators (who were generally pro-Romney) noted that ALL the other candidates did not like Romney. You, being one of his supporters, will proably call it jealousy, but surely you can't believe ALL the other candidates were jealous of Romney. Don't forget, public opinion polls show that he has the highest NEGATIVE rating of ANY Republican who ran in the primaries. |
|
First of all i like Mitt. So Im not the absolute authority on what goes on in the minds of the Huck people. But this is my take on all this.
I live in the Nothwest, in Oregon. There are many Mormans here and there are many Evangelicals also. I have many friends from both faiths, and over the years Ive come to understand some of the issues they have. Its a bit involved and you cant cover everything in one post. But here is a brief synopsis.
In the 1970's and 80's the LDS church began to have signifcant success in growing thier church in what is considered the bible belt.
Understandably the Evangelical community took some alarm at the loss of some of thier flock, and responded. The method they chose to respond with was to try and delegitimize the faith of the LDS.
Now come to the present. Mitt Romney is a Morman. If Romney is elected, the "christian" leaders are afraid that it will lead many to see the LDS faith as a legitimate faith and udo all their efforts that they have worked so had for.
I know this all seems so petty. but apparently it is very important to them. Hope this helps some
|
|
Would a Gov. Huckabee backer please explain why the ad by "Christian" leaders compelling Sen. McCain not to choose Gov. Romney?
Certainly even in your own minds he is not a liberal as Gov. Ridge, Sen. Lieberman, Mayor Giuliani and several others on the list of potential V.P. choices. Yet there is no noticable animosity towards these men. Are you going to stay home if one of these "pro choice" candidates is chosen as the V.P. nominee? How about Sec. Rice (I'm midly pro-choice)? I just don't understand the venom towards Gov. Romney but not these others.
Would someone please explain this? |
|
Yes, Huck never attacked Romney. lol. Remember Hucks press conference where he showed his attack ad to the press. You know, the attack ad he said he would never make because he was such a nice guy. But he just somehow made a completely vicious and untrue attack ad to show everyone, but wait a minute, he is such a nice guy, he would never do such a thing. This is all sooo confusing.
Huck has never caught on with the people for a reason. He appeals only to a small group of the electorate. Evangelicals only.
Romney on the other hand has a much broader appeal. Most people are not bible belters. Most are concerned about things like jobs, the economy, national secrutity, immigration ect.
For the GOP to win, they must go far beyond the bible belt. Huck just cant go there. He is a big liabilty in the North and West. |
|
|
Mitt Romney has noone to blame but himself for his unpopularity with ALL the other GOP candidates because he broke the 11th commandment about never attacking your own. I watched him attack, McCain, Guiliani and Huckabee, all viciously and, all the while distorting their records. When he realized that his 105M$ hadn't bought him the nomination and that, in fact it was Huckabee who won all the southern states on Super Tuesday, he bailed out while he could still have some semblence of pretense he was in 2nd place. He quickly tried being best friends with McCain, (giving his conservative delegates to the man he attacked as being liberal and withholding them from Huckabee who he kept saying was splitting conservative votes with him) making it more than obvious that he was "looking ahead to what's in it for Mitt" not looking to place his votes in the hands of the other conservative that had supposed beliefs like Romneys. Then, he tried to blame his demise on people being prejudiced against his faith. Truth be told, we don't care less about his faith. We do care that he is not authentic, genuine, consistent and as he himself said in his concession speech at CPAC "I hate to lose". It's not about principle and making a better tomorrow for the country, it's about winning. Now, it's time for you to stop blaming Mike Huckabee for Romney's failure to catch on with people. If Huckabee would have had Romney's millions, he would be the nominee right now. |
|
Huckabee gave the impression that he wanted more of a theocracy. He called himself the "Christian Leader", compared himself to Jesus, divided social conservatives by dissing Mormons, said he wanted to change the constitution to be more in line with God's laws.
Huck made his campaign ALL ABOUT RELIGION - so it was perfectly fair to ask him about it.
Every other GOP candidate was a better choice than Huck, even McCain. The GOP establishement could see that Huck would never win anything other than the south. He just has no appeal anywhere else. |
|
Draconian, well, for my family that would be $100 increase every single year. That would be enough to make me uncomfortable. Fiscal conservatives know that LOWERING the tax burden raises more revenue. Huck doesn't buy that simple concept that Reagan proved so well.
The overal picture is that Huck increased taxes 684 million during his time in office. That definitely puts him into the tax raiser category - which is exactly why he was opposed. He talks like he believes in lowering taxes, but his actions speak louder. |
|
|
Easy, I would vote for McCain/Huck in a hearbeat before id see Hill/obama be elected. They would be, as McCain/Romney would be, so much better for our country. Im not blinded by what ever the Huck people seem to blinded by.. Can you tell me what it is? |
|
|
The same question could be asked of you - how would you vote if the ticket is McCain/Huckabee? |
|
After following this thread for a few days I think I see a train of thought exibited by the Huck supporters. I don't really understand it so mabey you all could give some clarification.
You seem to be saying that if Romney gets the veep spot, in no way would you vote for the GOP in this election.
You would rather see a Pro gay[which seems to drive some of you crazy]candidate be prez.
You would rather see a Big gov., big tax. big spend ect. democrate in office.
You would rather see a weak national security POTUS.
You would rather see a return to the good ole days of the Clinton circus.
You would rather see supreme court go way left. No chance for the unborn.
I assume Many of you are evangelicals. I would think you would be against what Hillary/obama stand for. It really doesn't make any sense to me.
At the very least McCain/Romney would stand much closer to what you believe. Lightyears closer.
Is it spite? What?
|
|
Anybody that said that he intended a theocracy for this country did so for their own purposes knowing full well he did not.
Gov Huckabee changed his approach when Ed Rollins and others joined his campaign - it was a fatal mistake. Had he maintained his positive campaigning, reduced the number of jokes, not gotten sucked into answering all the religious questions, and stayed on message this could have been a much different race.
Of course, his biggest obstacle is that the GOP establishment decided that McCain was their best bet for the White House. After the word was given it was hard to find Gov Huckabee on any airwaves. And CNN wasn't about to help.
The CNN debates were a complete joke - the fact that the GOP would agree to CNN hosting a debate only allowed them to shape the campaign in favor of the Democrat Party. And who did we end up with?
Obviously, CNN desperately wanted Romney to win, but would settle for McCain. That was clear from the debates they hosted and during the Florida primary they listed his name first on their board despite not being alphabetically first or ever leading the count.
I went sour on McCain when Susan Estrich, Democrat Strategist, said McCain would be the most difficult Republican to beat in the general election.
The debate at the Reagan Library was sad - sad that they only cared about McCain and Romney, sad that Huckabee was unable to contain his anger, and sad that it was moderated by idiots.
The Democrat's were able to get away with not letting Fox host a debate - aren't they the smart ones?
You really should read 'From Hope to Higher Ground', it is Gov Huckabee's prescription for America - here's hoping he gets another chance in 2012. |
|
Are you trying to convince me that a $15 per person annual tax increase is somehow draconian?
Those numbers are very interesting, but the fact that Gov Huckabee left office with a surplus of over $850 Million is relevent even if it doesn't fit into your agenda.
The fact that education improved in Arkansas is relevent.
The fact that roads improved in Arkansas is relevent.
The fact that the taxes in Arkansas increased 47% while the national average was over 90% is relevent.
Gov Huckabee is not a perfect man, wasn't a perfect governor, and wouldn't have been a perfect president. However, I remain convinced that his leadership is what this country needs now more than ever. |
|
But here is just a random source, since you don't believe the Club for Growth:
"But according to data compiled for Cybercast News Service by Stephen Slivinski, director of budget studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, the tax hikes Huckabee supported between 1997 and 2007 were far heftier than his tax cuts. (Slivinski compiled his report from tax records available at the bi-partisan National Conference of State Legislatures.)
The numbers show that taxes increased at an average of $15 per person per fiscal year during Huckabee's tenure (1996-2007). The net tax cuts supported by Huckabee from fiscal years 1997 to 2007 totaled $222 million, while net tax increases supported or unopposed by Huckabee totaled $864 million.
The net increase in taxes supported by Huckabee, therefore, equaled $642 million. With a population slightly declining - from 2.7 million in 1997 to 2.5 million in 2007 - net taxes collected in Arkansas rose by more than $3 billion during Huckabee's gubernatorial tenure.
|
|
I love your comments and am trying to be more like that.
I am very pro Romney and excited to see what he does in the future.
I am trying to NOT be anti Huckabee and look for the positive in all.
Both Huck and Romney supporters truly ARE on the same page when it comes to being pro God, pro family and pro country.
We need to remember that.
McCain is not my favorite person but he is superior to the other two.
I will steel myself and vote for him no matter who his veep is.
Romney 2012 |
|
I've always thought of myself as part of the Republican base. But I can tell you that Gov. Huckabee didn't reach me. In fact he was so annoying that I would have voted for anyone of the other Republican candidates before Gov. Hucakbee.
I always thought that socially conservatives were moral, honest, and ethical. Yet Gov. Huckabee was named one of the ten most unethical candidates in the country.
Gov. Huckabee's constant snipping at Gov. Romney is annoying and makes him look petty.
|
|
Yes, it would be wrong. So long as those sex acts were
1. not with children
2. not around children
3. Kept to himself. It's not my business.
4. He's a good employee.
Sounds fair to me. See you in court. |
|
|
I don't know why Huckabee is so worried about Romney. He is one, yes, one name on McCain's list. Why is it so personal? Romney has become Huckabee's personal anti-Christ. |
|
|
Show me what the overall tax rate was when Huckabee entered the Arkansas Governorship, and then show me what it was when he left. |
|
|
He has more folksy one-liners than anyone I've ever seen. Must be from all that televangelizing he did. For some people, it worked to hide his lak of substance on the issues. |
|
You say: "I'm not mad that Huck has supporters, I just wish they could honestly tell us why they support him in light of his record and character."
We've told you countless times, HONESTLY, why we support Huckabee but you must go into zombie mode anytime you see our explanations, because you keep making the same charges.
Do I have problems with Huckabee? Certainly. I always have. I don't like the fact that he thinks we should have "free trade but fair trade" (which Mitter the Quitter and Obama also say). And what's up with accusing the Bush Administration having an "arrogant, bunker mentality"? I mean, it's not like Bush didn't delay the Iraqi invasion for over FOUR FREAKIN' MONTHS just to get the U.N. on board.
But his problems are overshadowed, in my opinion, by his good points; namely, his conservative record as governor of Arkansas (remember the "Tax Me More" resolution?), his support for the Fair Tax and eloquent defense of the same, his ability to speak well in debates and speeches, and his ability to reach the Base and turn them out to vote without having to spend lots of campaign cash.
|
|
|
I see you're still hanging in there trying to explain to Huckabeen's supporters why he is a lost cause. Your posts are factual and right on the money! |
|
Rush isn't always right about everything, but he's more on target than most. He is pretty good at reading the political landscape and he is almost always exactly right on. Do you listen? I'd put more faith in him telling the truth than anyone in the media. What reason does he have to lie? I'd love to hear it, cav. I suppose you're one of those conspiracy theorist who think clear channel is stil controlled by Romney and Rush was scared out of his wits!
It wasn't hard for Rush to determine what everyone knows - that Huck is a big business tax-raiser and has lousy, dishonest excuses for it. Anyone can see the overall picture of Huckabee from his statements and his record, they don't need to have an intricate knowledge of Arkansas.
I don't see how the CFG reporting on Huckabee's actions as governor can be misleading. I read the exact same things from other sources - they are accurate in their report.
My gosh, cav! Why do you take the truth so hard? Huck is not a fiscal conservative - get over it. |
|
PC wrote earlier: "Saying Rush is ignorant is a pretty silly thing to do, though."
Oh, really? Do you remember that Rush asserted unequivocally that Hillary Clinton was NOT going to run for the Senate in New York. He was speaking out of ignorance.
More recently, after the South Carolina Primary, Rush stated that Huck's second place showing was his "swan song." Super Tuesday showed that Rush was wrong.
Besides, it's not silly to say Rush is ignorant of Arkansas State Finance/Budgets. Most people outside of AR are ignorant. Rush, from what I could see, was doing what a lot of the Mittwits were doing: taking the word of people he trusted (Club for Growth) instead of investigating the charges. I investigated the charges and found them to be, at best, misleading.
|
|
Huck did hit Mitt and still does every chance he gets. Romney doesn't do that.
Huckabee is pretty much a one-trick pony. The south. End of story. The south will vote McCain in the general. Huck won 5, Romney won 7 and McCain won 9 on super Tuesday. If Huck were the nominee, he would lose everywhere but the south.
Huckabee got millions worth of puffy press. Romney had mo such advantage - he was the one the DNC and the MSM hated the most. He had to spend more to overcome that.
Romney suspended his campaign for one week. Huckabee stayed in the race for WAY too long and didn't make a dent in McCain. If Huck had dropped out, Romney would have beat McCain easily - everyone acknowledges this.
I'm not mad that Huck has supporters, I just wish they could honestly tell us why they support him in light of his record and character. The news is not written by political opponents, cav. LOL The press loved him, but they couldn't supress his record or the bone-headed comments he continued to make.
I find it hilarious that in order to prop Huck, you need to trash the Club for Growth. All they do is report on the records of politicians. Just those stubborn facts.
Cav- nobody thinks Huck is a fiscal conservative. He is a populist in the exact same mold as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. They are all 3 fakes from the south, and the only people they fool are southerners. |
|
Is that nobody gave him a chance. Hewitt wouldn't even talk about him before Iowa. I remember one caller to Hewitt's show saying he was going to vote for Huckabee; Hewitt's response was "I hope you're not throwing away your vote!"
And so it went for all the other chatterati, except Medved. Huckabee was a nice guy, a good talker/debater, but he didn't have a chance. Look at all the money that Romney poured into Iowa! Romney's getting his message out! Nobody can really compete with Romney, because he's put so much money into the race!
Of course, Huckabee went on to win big in Iowa. Then, the talking points were that Huckabee was a one-trick pony; that Iowa would be his only win.
Super Tuesday: Huckabe swept the South, McCain pretty much got everything else. Mitt's millions that he invested in the Prez campaign got an anemic return. So Mitt became Mitter the Quitter, and even then he couldn't quit honestly--he "suspended his campaign," hoping, I guess, that Huckabee would do well enough to allow him to sweep in on convention day to play kingmaker or bid for VP or something.
And now, all the Mittwits are spitting mad that Huckabee still has supporters. Didn't they prove that Huckabee was a bigot by saying he was? Didn't they prove that Huckabee was a dishonorable skunk by showing us the news articles written by Huck's political opponents? Didn't the Club for Growth, one of whose members was a political adversary of Huckabee, prove that Huckabee was a fiscal liberal?
Nope, Nope, and Nope.
Huckabee is an honorable man, who is both socially and fiscally conservative. And he has proven he can win elections with just a fraction of the money Romney needs. |
|
|
I agree, the main goal should be to get John McCain elected. None of my arguments on behalf of Huckabee as VP have anything to do with religion, and I don't think religion should be a factor. Mitt is a Mormon, and Huckabee is a Baptist, and both men have every right to follow their chosen religion without being persecuted for it. Unfortunately, Huckabee has faced an abundance of it from a variety of sources. I support Huckabee because of his stance on the issues, and the slanted views of the author of this blog is what I wanted to address. Huckabee has many admirable qualities, and if one listens to this video, it is clear to see this author has mischaracterized his statements. |
|
|
|
PC on April 19, 2008 12:26 PM:
> I've never clicked on any of your links, I doubt anyone does.
> I bypass all of your posts.
OK.
> It's like you are a robot spitting
> out random links.
> Do you think anyone cares?
I care.
> Why don't you just make your
> own point once and prove you're human?
Never.
remember punditry's malpractice this primary season
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg /a49836376d61bdc3
|
|
sorry.
I differ from some in that I want us to move on and throw our energy towards getting John McCain elected.
And I cringe when we throw word bombs or links at each other. We are all Americans and united by that fact. Because we are not automatically united by a single faith (religion) does not make us enemies. I worship the Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience and should allow you the same freedom-privilege to worship (or not) in your own ways.
Today I was reading about a 19 year old Levitt ancestor coming from English in 1640 and how widespread his descendants now are in Canada, US, and Australia because of the courage of this one young man. I'm glad I get to live in America because of him. You have your family stories, some are the stories of slavery which are sad, but we are all here now. And we are part of the UNITED States of America - with emphasis on the united part. So let's unite and get John elected. Thanks for reading. |
|
elected. Meanwhile, Iran is continuing to advance as a nuclear power and we argue over links and interpretations of each other's theology. It's a rough world out there that we conveniently ignore in the safety of our homes.
We have a job to do: Get John McCain elected. Everything else is secondary to that critical goal.
Why dissipate our collective political power with score settling over posts?
Obama is paper thin in terms of understanding the history of this nation. His values are based on political expediency. His speeches are appealing to people because of his compelling oratory skills, coupled with false promises of his being able to solve complex issues with "hope." He has sold folks a dream. How nebulous is that!!
He has no record of accomplishments beyond voting "present" and holding office. Novice with speaking skills to run our nation at this critical time in world history?
Hillary is more of a known quantity, and her husband (co-president) IS a known quantity. If ever there was a political shape-sifter, it is Senator Clinton. The term "baggage" doesn't begin to tell the Hillary story. You think taxes are high and government is over extended and intrusive, just wait until Hillary fixes it.
And I'm not even toughing on moral issues such as support for life and traditional marriage.
With laser-like focus we vocal TH-GOP folks can forget our trivial wars (and resume them later - thank you that in America we can argue openly about religion, etc.)and roll up our sleeves to get John supported and nominated. Then the battle really begins to get John elected. The Demo war chest is brimming. We'll have to part with our dollars and make sure John has continuous ads to counter the lies and distortions against his character, record, and platform.
He must be elected. |
|
[Qweenmumof7 on April 18, 2008 2:42 PM]"I never said that a PRIVATE organization such as a church should have gay priests. Never. But, to deny someone a job because they are gay (outside of religion -which one should never get a paycheck for anyway) is wrong."
Suppose a Mormon starts a day care business. She learns that one of her male employees has sex on a regular basis with at least 4 other males aged 19, 23, 56, and 21. Would it be immoral/ wrong for the Mormon businesswoman to fire that male employee upon learning this?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Romney for & anti- outlawing discrimination over sexual orientation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=06bdb44e-7578-4dd6-833 c-8f0a00b1aa29%4025g2000hsu.googlegroups.com
Dahl, David. 8 December 2006.
"Romney's thoughts on gay marriage, circa 1994"
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2 006/12/romneys_thought.html
On whether he supported a federal bill to prevent anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation and credit:
“I am not fully aware of that bill, so I would need to study that more fully. I am aware of the legislation that Barney Frank proposed [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and do support that and would vote in favor of that.
“I also philosophically support efforts to ban discrimination in housing. The particulars of the bill you’re speaking about I have not studied, so I shouldn’t state a position. Philosophically, I support efforts to remove discrimination from the workplace, from housing, from education and so forth.”
|
|
|
| | |