I think Romney is easily the best candidate. He is right on defence, immigration, the border, conservative values, political experience, and his personal life.
Terry, I can agree with you on that. However...
Terry Gain - 22 September 2007 08:02 PM
I suspect it’s his religion, which objectively suffers from the being created by a self proclaimed prophet who adopted a lot of existing Judeo-Christian dogma.
Now that is not only incorrect, but the next paragraph, however smoothly delivered, leads the objective reader to believe you have a personal prejudice against Latter-day Saints:
Terry Gain - 22 September 2007 08:02 PM
This might subconsciously cause people to connect Romney with another religion which has these same similarities. This other religion has been in the news, and on our minds, a lot lately.
Comparing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - http://www.lds.org or http://www.mormon.org - with Islam is a disgusting insult, and quite violently anti-Mormon both in style as well as substance.
I’m sure you get the point. Please be more honest with powerline readers when commenting on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I can well understand why you conclude that I am anti-Mormon but you are wrong. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was speculating about why Romney is not more popular as I think he is easily the best candidate and clearly has more positives and fewer negatives than any other candidate. You overlook the fact that I support Romney so his religion is obviously not a bar to my support.
I was not intending to offer a reasoned opinion of the similarities and differences between Islam and Mormonism.
What I know about the Church of Mormon could be printed on the head of a pin-in block letters. I abjectly apologize to any Mormons I offended if they think I was comparing their religion to Islam.
Having taken one foot out of my mouth let me put the other one in. I know a great deal about Islam and I have no hesitation in saying I am an Islamophobe. I fear Sharia law. It is backward and inhumane and has no place in a civilized society. I recognize that a lot of Muslims lead pious lives but they seem to do so because they ignore the difficult passages in the Koran.
John, your analysis of Romney’s lacks as a politician and campaigner seem pretty much right on.
He reminds me in a way of North Dakota’s Gov. John Hoeven: great guy, handsome, much younger than Romney, talented, bright; but one sort of senses numbers in the wheels turning in his head while he speaks sort of MBA-platitudes… maybe those guys do well running for governor, as people know who they are… but on stage, or TV, it doesn’t come across.
But a big factor you didn’t mention and I would argue is a lead weight albatross around Mitt’s bronzed neck: the trial of Warren Jeffs, the rogue Mormon polygamist, all over cable TV, especially “Court TV.”
It may not be fair, because there are putative and real differences between mainline Mormons like Mitt and the “outlaws,” like Jeffs.
But the whole drama reminds many, I would bet, of the “strangeness” of Mormon teaching and their unique -and therefore different - history and place in America. And mostly, that won’t help him in polls or voting booths, I would bet.
mouthing off occasionally and saying unbelievably immature and dumb things, like his sons serving the country by working on his campaign.
“there is a somewhat amateurish quality to him at times”
Untrue and true.
The sons comment came from Mitt Romney protecting his family from a rude question. It’s is a completely natural reaction to misspeak when protecting a loved one. Mitt Romney is a dad just like anyone else and I think that is what evoked the unfortunate remark from him. Hearing an awful thing implied about your loved ones is hard for most people to handle with constant grace and composure.
This leads to why the amateurish quality is correct; Mitt is not campaign tough. He needs to read those things better, quicker & expose them for what they really are: an ad hominen attack to impugn his ability to declare war as POTUS by not having sons in the military. This is a ridiculous implication and is cheap shots politics at its best. Most amateurs do have a tough time with this sort of thing....Mitt has to get better at, that’s for sure.
John, what the heck are you babbling about? Romney, the businessman/politician, was elected governor of Mass. Kind of like a business guy named Bush elected governor of Texas and then president, twice. I am undecided at this point (for disclosure) but I think your observation is irrelevant.
Actually, I think John nails why many people, including me, have yet to connect with Mitt: there’s something too slick and polished, lacking that impression of sincerity. Of all things, it reminds me of the feeling I got from Bill Clinton. (Put down the flamethrowers. I’m not saying Mitt in another Slick Willie. Just that I get the same impression of being too polished.) Though I agree with almost all Romney’s positions and I’d happily vote for him in the general election, he doesn’t arouse any enthusiasm in me in this primary race. He doesn’t elicit the gut-level response from me (and, it seems, John) that, for different reasons, Rudy and Fred do.
It’s possible that this inability to emotionally connect to voters via TV could be a big problem for Mitt, when and if he faces off against Hillary.
(Then again, she repulses so many voters, Mitt’s “problem” may not make a difference.)
Those of you who read this forum know I am the enemy. There is no good Republican candidate out there, and you know it. Rudy G. (for some unknown reason) is considered the front-runner. I admit he might have the best chance in the election, but he has a bit of baggage on the way to the nomination. Besides, he is a kook. Fred T. hasn’t exactly ignited a firestorm, has he?
As a Democrat, I find Mitt less awful than your other heroes. There have been a few posts on this forum that expressly criticize him because he is a Mormon. Do you think that’s a genuine liability? (I am much more troubled by the story that he put the family dog in a kennel on the roof of the car and drove for ten hours.)
This is one of those elections where one can safely say that the party in power is going to lose UNLESS something really wierd happens. This would include GWB starting a war with Iran.
I am scared enough by the current administration that I would not put anything past it. War with Iran is casually discussed by Cheney. This past week, Israel bombed Syria with the apparent approval of our President.
I have the feeling (and that’s all it is) that Romney isn’t nuts, and compared to what we have now, that’s pretty good.
Those of you who read this forum know I am the enemy. There is no good Republican candidate out there, and you know it. Rudy G. (for some unknown reason) is considered the front-runner. I admit he might have the best chance in the election, but he has a bit of baggage on the way to the nomination. Besides, he is a kook. Fred T. hasn’t exactly ignited a firestorm, has he?
As a Democrat, I find Mitt less awful than your other heroes. There have been a few posts on this forum that expressly criticize him because he is a Mormon. Do you think that’s a genuine liability? (I am much more troubled by the story that he put the family dog in a kennel on the roof of the car and drove for ten hours.)
This is one of those elections where one can safely say that the party in power is going to lose UNLESS something really wierd happens. This would include GWB starting a war with Iran.
I am scared enough by the current administration that I would not put anything past it. War with Iran is casually discussed by Cheney. This past week, Israel bombed Syria with the apparent approval of our President.
I have the feeling (and that’s all it is) that Romney isn’t nuts, and compared to what we have now, that’s pretty good.
M Squared
Your predictions don’t take into account what is happening in Iraq. Hillary has dug herself into a hole from which she won’t escape. I guess when you fianally get what is happening over there you will think it weird.
Let’s see. If the choice is between Hillary or Obama, who want to tax me into poverty, give me public health care clinics as a replacement for my doctor, who want to surrender to Islamic fascists and the UN, and cheerfully allow my country to be overrun by uneducated, third world hottentots, or any and all of the Republicans, (except of course for Ron Paul who belongs in an insnane asylum), which would I choose? Hard, hard choice. A real hard choice; my future under the DEMS in a socialist, third world hell hole, or the chance, however slim, that one of the Republicans could turn this ship around before the socialist left flushes us all down the toilet? And would I give a rat’s ass whether or not the Republican candidate was for or against abortion, for or against butt pirates playing house, or some other meaningless distraction? No. I don’t care if some ignorant slut has an abortion; better that than dump her kid on me down the road as a criminal, welfare recipient, or general low life democrat; and I don’t care what Adam and Steve are playing at behind closed doors, etc, etc, etc. These are peripheral issues that pale in comparison to my country’s survival.
I would vote for any and all of the Republican candidates, with the exception of the aforementioned lunatic, Ron Paul. I would have to hold my nose and flagellate myself for several weeks were I forced to vote for the mental midget, John McCain, but I would still vote for him as opposed to any and all of the DEMS.
As for Romney, I don’t know why I cannot connect with the guy. He does nothing for me. He’s too slick for me in many ways, he doesn’t seem very sincere, but as long as he’s not a Muslim, I couldn’t care less if he worships horned goats. So him being a mormon means zilch. But I still cannot connect with the guy.
Now do I ever become overcome with pride when George Bush speaks? No. Whenever I see or hear him, I want to beat him like a pinata and send his ass to Mexico.
Mitt is great and I would vote for him if I thought that he could beat Hillary. But if one looks at the numbers, it seems that for a Republican to win, he has to pull in a significant number of Independent and or Democrat voters. At this time, the only two candidates who could pull this off are Rudy and Fred-and they don’t make me jump for joy either.
Let’s see. If the choice is between Hillary or Obama, who want to tax me into poverty, give me public health care clinics as a replacement for my doctor, who want to surrender to Islamic fascists and the UN, and cheerfully allow my country to be overrun by uneducated, third world hottentots, or any and all of the Republicans, (except of course for Ron Paul who belongs in an insnane asylum), which would I choose? Hard, hard choice. A real hard choice; my future under the DEMS in a socialist, third world hell hole, or the chance, however slim, that one of the Republicans could turn this ship around before the socialist left flushes us all down the toilet? And would I give a rat’s ass whether or not the Republican candidate was for or against abortion, for or against butt pirates playing house, or some other meaningless distraction? No. I don’t care if some ignorant slut has an abortion; better that than dump her kid on me down the road as a criminal, welfare recipient, or general low life democrat; and I don’t care what Adam and Steve are playing at behind closed doors, etc, etc, etc. These are peripheral issues that pale in comparison to my country’s survival.
I would vote for any and all of the Republican candidates, with the exception of the aforementioned lunatic, Ron Paul. I would have to hold my nose and flagellate myself for several weeks were I forced to vote for the mental midget, John McCain, but I would still vote for him as opposed to any and all of the DEMS.
As for Romney, I don’t know why I cannot connect with the guy. He does nothing for me. He’s too slick for me in many ways, he doesn’t seem very sincere, but as long as he’s not a Muslim, I couldn’t care less if he worships horned goats. So him being a mormon means zilch. But I still cannot connect with the guy.
Now do I ever become overcome with pride when George Bush speaks? No. Whenever I see or hear him, I want to beat him like a pinata and send his ass to Mexico.
I hear you Mick 730. There is no choice between Democrat and Republican and I too will vote for ANY of the Republican candidates (maybe even Ron Paul) over any Democrat. We are fighting to protect the soul of this country and the Democrats want to sell our soul down the river,
But, while I can see your distaste for Romney, the guy deserves credit for bucking the liberal trend to be elected governor of MASSACHUSETTS--one of the top 5 liberal states in our country! That to me says he understands the Left as much as Rudi and behind that “geez golly” veneer is a real politician who knows what he is up against and I can’t imagine that Massachusetts voters would choose a “plastic” governor. Step back from the squeeky clean montage and you have a man who has proven himself to be savvy, pragmatic and consistent in his ability to overcome odds. I’m just not sure the Romney “image” will resonate with independent voters who currently represent the majority of voters. Still, when you realize that Guilliani and Hillary started out with national name recognition and Romney did not, he has done fairly well in this campaign. He’s definitely presidential material--it’s just a matter of convincing the lasseiz faire voter that he is.
Does Romney actually think he’s gonna win over conversative voters by lashing out at Republicans and making us the enemy instead of making Hillary the enemy? That’s the biggest no no he could of made.
He is not lashing out at Conservatives like me and he is exactly right. Norm Coleman, whose campaign I busted my ass on, has lost my vote thanks to his voting for the Webb amendment, and voting like a sissy on other war and immigration issue’s. Frankly you either vote like you have a pair or look for other help. I am through voting for Republcans with no conservative principles because they think voting moderate is a virtue. Mitt’s exactly right on this issue he is offering to take the party back just like Reagan did. I hope it works.
Terry Gain:
I was not intending to offer a reasoned opinion of the similarities and differences between Islam and Mormonism.
What I know about the Church of Mormon could be printed on the head of a pin-in block letters. I abjectly apologize to any Mormons I offended if they think I was comparing their religion to Islam.
TG, I have read many of your posts and knew what point you were trying to make, still it was mighty stand-up of you to clarify.
Lawfam, that was a nice defence of LDS’ers. What little I know bout the Mormon’s indicates they are fine people.
I have nothing against Romney’s religion. In fact, if the mormon’s didn’t prohibit the use of caffiene and alchohol I might even convert as some of the most upstanding, generous, and kind people I have known are Mormans. But… I have thought all along that only Rudy can take it to Hillary and lets face it. That is what needs to be done. Notice that the dem candidates are too afraid to take her on and send their wives out there. Well, freak that. I want the candidate to do it and Rudy can. If the religious right wants to cut their throat over divorces and abortion, then fine. If Hillary wins, abortion will be a sacrament, you will be paying at least 5%-6% more in income taxes, the fairness doctrine will shut up rush, sean et al., and you can stand in line for months to see the specialist hillary has personally assigned to you. She will gut the military, and when your friendly peaceful member of the religion of peace suicide bombs your local mall, she and Sandy Berger will be on the case to tax you for the reparations you must pay to the victims but will somehow not be able to find or bring to janice reno justice the perpetrator. In the meantime, her horndog will be out selling pardons for terrorists who must might contribute some cash to their personal bank account laundered through the clinton libraries.
John’s anaysis is excellent. I agree with every word.
Romney’s challenge, should he get the nomination, will be the onslaught from the MSM about his religion. Of course, the MSM will only play this card if he wins the nomination. They fear Giuliani the most and have most to gain by making sure someone other than Giuliani opposed Hillary. The anti-Mormon onslaught is also the reason why we - sadly or not - should not give Romney the chance to oppose Hillary. He won’t be able to survive the visciousness, or translate a recovery from it into 51%.
So I think Mitt - and maybe even Thompson - will be getting the kid glove treatment from the MSM.
Sorry lawfam but there are problems with LDS doctrine that will be obvious fodder during the campaign. I pick out only the most blatant one in your statement:
lawfamily - 22 September 2007 09:28 PM
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
This is a deal breaker with most Christians (translation: a very big part of the base)...That the book of Mormon is the word of God but that the Bible has problems that are in need of “correct” translation.
There are many other “issues” with the Mormon faith that would be easily exploited by the media (as a willing accomplice to the Democrats). If you think they wouldn’t do it you are not being honest with yourself about who they are and how they work.
Sorry if you don’t like it but this is a political reality. Mitt would be running a race with a concrete block manacled to his ankle.
That nonsense about Mormons and their charitable largesse - that only includes helping other Mormons. Unlike St. Vincent De Paul, Catholic Social Services, The Salvation Army, etc., if you aint Mormon, Mormons aint helpin’ you!
.
Now ...
Back to Mitt and his plasticized persona, he’s just being typical.
