One subjective rating of the Repubs:
Mitt: what Hinderaker said. There’s a “menschness” missing, lack of flesh and blood, emotional charisma that seems to be a pretty big deal for presidents. HillRodClint has similar problem.
I also think his Mormon faith will become a bigger and bigger problem for him the closer voters get to pulling the switch. So to speak. And as unfair as it might be.
His laudable gifts and accomplishments make it clear he could do just about anything, including be President; but they will be, well, literally notwithstanding.
Rudy the G-man: For all his positives, he has a dark, Nixonian persona that is nearly the opposite of, say, Reagan’s sunny, morning-in-America charisma and that could prove fatal. Watch the way he “puts on” his big grin as he takes a stage. He is not a smiler and when he tries to look like one, there’s a vague frisson of something of the skull that is kind of chilling. He’s not likable enough. He’s a prosecutor by training, career and at heart. Who wants a DA for President? Lincoln, remember, was a defender.
Rudy also is too short. Sorry.
And he has the worst hair since, well, Polk and Buchanan come to mind.(Ike gets a pass cause his was military cool and he looked so good bald and he was a soldier. Coolidge was spare and nearly dapper.)Plus,hair apparent...ly has become increasingly important since Ike.
His general Napoleonic look (and temperament, some say) is not a positive for a President. Great mayor. Not White House timber.
Fred is great and might do it. Such a voice is no little thing. And he’s tall. He just looks like a President. His list of accomplishments is thin by Prez standards. He’s no rocket scientist. Part of his great charm is that he doesn’t sweat the small stuff. And maybe not enough of the big stuff. There is little evidence in his life of executive ability.
Can he run things?
And he has shown he doesn’t have the deeply seated platform of ideas and vision, maybe, that we like our Presidents to have.
Heaven forbid, but I think Fred’s health is compromised. He carries the look of a person who is not robustly well. Not unlike Tony Snow’s strained look. A year as U.S president appears to cost the average guy about three or four regular years. I don’t think Fred’s got that much time.
He may be, however, the most likable, maybe electable, Repub, in regular circumstances, as the celebrity angle seems to grow in importance.
His lack of self-importance - something Mitt and Rudy can’t quite get - goes a long way, both in cosmetic and substantive ways.
Johnny Mac does have some foundational stuff nobody else in the hunt does. His top-gun, , hero history is nothing to sneeze at and is real and deep. Just compare him to Johnny Kerry. Gads.
It’s not a free ticket to the White House, of course, but it gives him a huge head start.
He’s been at or around the top of national government for decades and knows all the stuff, all the decisions, all the names, where all the bodies are buried. His learning curve would be about nil.
He may be more his own man than anyone else, save L. Ron Paul, for better or worse.
He doesn’t want the office as badly as, say, Mitt; which I find attractive. But that might be a taste thing.
Nolo episcopari, and all that.
Johnny Mac also will look better and better in the next year because I’m afraid things will get worse, worldwise, before the election, including mostly the war on terror.
If all hell appears to be breaking loose, Johnny Mac, for all his faults, would be most people’s choice to share their foxhole and give the orders.
Abortion, by the way, will become a more important issue the closer the election comes, I think (it’s relative size will vary inversely with how much hell breaks out, but the point stands)because that’s a sort of constant voter sector. And Johnny Mac has the best history on that issue of the leading guys.
He is an Episcopalian, by the way, too, for what it’s worth. By far, the most common religion of Presidents, I’m pretty sure.
(If there still is an Episcopal Church by 2008)
His age and helth raise some questions.
I think he will outlive Fred, for example. But he’s at the margin, no doubt. I bet the Presidency would age him less than about anyone else, though.
And I agree that he should be lashed (tasteless metaphor to use for this POW hero, but he can take it) for McCain-Feingold.
But I think he has the broadest appeal across the country and would make any of the Dem candidates look like little girls in any setting.
He walks and talks and quacks like a President, better than anyone else, including Fred, who is, remember, an actor.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
And he’s sort of lovable, in that “he’s a rotten S.O.B., but he’s OUR rotten S.O.B.” kind of way.
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.
This must be addressed: Warren Jeffs is not a Mormon, “rogue” or not. Warren Jeffs has never, ever been baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints http://www.lds.org, commonly referred to as “The Mormons.”
Also, one can simply go to http://www.mormon.org if one wishes to see if what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches is strange as inkstained claims. Off topic, one unique attribute of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fact that it is the largest Christian denomination founded within the borders of The United States of America, as well as the fastest-growing major one in the entire world.
hoads - 23 September 2007 02:45 AM
...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...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.
I have seen the “plastic” comment coming only from rival camps, be it Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, or Sam Brownback. I suppose that either partisan politics is behind the consistent charge, or perhaps the repetition has finally started to work, and those who haven’t paid much attention to Mitt Romney are starting to parrot partisans who don’t support him. On another note, Ann Coulter keeps praising Mitt Romney for fooling democrats into voting for him. LOL
TitanTrader - 23 September 2007 03:37 AM
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.
Agreed. He keeps getting attacked by Republicans, so don’t be surprised when he returns fire. John McCain and Rudy Guiliani are not Conservatives, so they are fair game.
TitanTrader - 23 September 2007 03:37 AM
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.
Agreed.
TitanTrader - 23 September 2007 03:48 AM
Lawfam, that was a nice defence of LDS’ers. What little I know bout the Mormon’s indicates they are fine people.
Why thank you, TitanTrader.
millay - 23 September 2007 03:54 AM
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.
While the threat of Hillary is quite motivating, Rudy has name recognition only. And if he ends up with the nomination, the leftist media, moveon, dailyKOS, and the Democrat nominees’ campaign will all blanket the airwaves with Rudy dressed in drag, kissing Donald Trump, and make what they have tried to do to Mitt Romney seem like child’s play. I, for one, don’t believe for a minute they are not holding back, keeping their powder dry. That’s exactly what they’re doing. Once he’s it, they’ll do all in their power to convince those of us with principles (conservatives) to sit on our hands. They’ll shred Rudy to bits, and enough conservative Christians will be affected to make the difference in a close election. Mitt Romney shares the values of the Republican base, but Rudy Guiliani does not. http://youtube.com/GovMittRomney Watch Mitt Romney’s recent commercials. He is not plastic, too slick, or anything of the sort. He’s very convincing, and he resonates with the base. Unlike Rudy Guiliani, former Governor Romney has proven he can succeed in the private sector, and in a big way. Guiliani=career lawyer & politician. Haven’t we had enough of those?
The above posts have raised many good, and perhaps even excellent, points. It’s all wrong, but they’re good points anyway.
What’s the reason—the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t currently give a hoot about the 2008 election and Romney is a national nobody. McCain, Giuliani and Thompson have some name recognition so if you ask Joe Six Pack who he’s voting for he’ll pick on of the known 3. All of the talk about likeability, personal connection, etc is crap if nobody knows who you are and the vast majority of nobodies just don’t care. Don’t confuse your knowledge as political junkies with that of average Americans who are watching the baseball season wind-down and the football season wind-up.
And, contrary to what the Romney campaign may think, they’re not going to get that national recognition by focusing on the Iowa State Fair. Most people likely care less about Iowa than they do the 2008 election. Ask yourself a question as well… how many people actually watch the “debates” and the Sunday political shows? My guess is less than 2% of all potential voters.
Curly, you’ve made an excellent point. So good I wish it were mine.
The above posts have raised many good, and perhaps even excellent, points. It’s all wrong, but they’re good points anyway.
What’s the reason—the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t currently give a hoot about the 2008 election and Romney is a national nobody. McCain, Giuliani and Thompson have some name recognition so if you ask Joe Six Pack who he’s voting for he’ll pick on of the known 3. All of the talk about likeability, personal connection, etc is crap if nobody knows who you are and the vast majority of nobodies just don’t care. Don’t confuse your knowledge as political junkies with that of average Americans who are watching the baseball season wind-down and the football season wind-up.
And, contrary to what the Romney campaign may think, they’re not going to get that national recognition by focusing on the Iowa State Fair. Most people likely care less about Iowa than they do the 2008 election. Ask yourself a question as well… how many people actually watch the “debates” and the Sunday political shows? My guess is less than 2% of all potential voters.
Curly, you’ve made an excellent point. So good I wish it were mine.
It would be an excellent point, if this were the campaign for the general election. But since this is the primary campaign, and the people who will decide it are primary voters, it’s actually not a very good point at all.
Okay the biggest reason for Romney’s national polling problems was totally overlooked in this article. That reason is one year ago every single one of the top tier candidates was a household name and face EXCEPT Romney.
“Oh look it’s America’s mayor Rudy-Judy”
“Hey there’s the Republican who ran against Bush in 2000 McCain”
“Look it’s that guy from law and order. He’s running for President?”
“Romney who’s that?”
There are a LOT of people who are still just not paying attention and plus it’s extremely hard to become someone that people are comfortable with when they are not paying attention.
That being said I think this article touched on Romney’s biggest weakness and made some great points. Romney needs to be able to take down his facade a few times per debate and really connect in an emotional way with people “I want to give back to this country that has given so much to me an my family.”
Getting elected is like applying for a job, you need intelligence, experience, and a strong work ethic; but it’s also like getting married, you need to trust the person, and be able to relate to them because you’re going to have to live with that person for the next 4-8 years.
Romney cinched the job application with flying colors now he needs to seriously work on his wedding vows.
Is it typical for Mormon men to do their two-year mission instead of military service. I think they got excused from the draft for it, right?
I’m not saying it’s good or bad, or faulting Romney: just a religious curiosity.
Is there any official LDS teaching on this?
Mormon men do not do a mission instead of military service. They are mutually exclusive. Those Mormon men who want to join the military are encouraged to serve their mission first whenever possible. However, there are ways for missions to interrupt military service.
The Mormon church believes in the peace that can be found by living the teachings of Jesus Christ and following his example. However, we live in a world that is at times at war. Serving in the military and protecting the freedoms of our country and the lives of our families is necessary and sometimes required.
It should be remembered that 500 Mormon men volunteered to fight in the Mexican-American War at the time they were being run out of the United States on their way to Utah. Today many of the highest leaders in the Mormon church served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, including retired 4-Star General Robert Oaks. FWIW, Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft is a mormon.
My understanding is that during the Vietnam War, the time that Romney went on a mission, that the church was severely limited by the government in the number of men who could go on missions. There wasn’t the same expectation of Mormon men to go on missions then as there is now. Going on a mission then was a deferment from the draft, but you were vulnerable to it when you got back.
Dear lawfamily:
Sorry, I don’t know if you are dear or not. I just said that out of habit.
Not sorry, Jeffs is a Mormon, albeit a rogue one.
Trying to define “Mormon,” as only those in the LDS church itself is analogous to a Catholic (might you be an LDS member, by chance?) arguing that Protestants aren’t Christian, or a fightin’ fundie screaming that Catholics aren’t Christians.
Jeffs believes the story of Joseph Smith’s revelation, believes the stories of the angel Moroni and, I’ll bet, the same story about Mormon that LDS church members believe,, and of Jesus’ visit to proto-America, etc…
So, come on. He’s a Mormon. A bad, rogue, outlaw one. And I agree there are real differences between him and his ilk and the LDS church.
But he’s a Mormon. However, he should never be described as one without the qualifying terms such as rogue or outlaw, I will agree.
I meant the term “strange,” not in a necessarily negative sense, just as a descriptive, not prescriptive, sense. That’s why I linked “unique,” to “different.”
As much as the Mormon tradition, and the LDS church in particular, is unique, it is, by definition, just as different. It does, as you refer to, hold an unusual, yes, unique, place in American history. In a real - and again, unique - sense, Mormonism can claim to be the single truly American religion. In this area, it makes simple fundamentalist Protestant British-Israelism look like a piker.
For good or bad. It sort of depends on one’s own religious perspective.
I don’t mean my analysis of Mitt as negative criticism of the LDS church (and to be frank, I have beliefs that include negative criticism up the wazoo about the whole Mormon story; but that’s not here nor there for my comments here. I’m just being Frank within the parentheses.) I’m just sayin’ that different and strange things generally don’t sell well in Presidential campaigns and elections in America.
And I tried to be clear that Mitt would no doubt do at least OK as Prez. He’s a gifted, impressive person.
I suppose I would rather have him than any Dem for Prez.
Except Joe “Elmer Fudd that he is” Lieberman. Gotta love that mensch.
But you protest too much and are obviously on a bandwagon for Mitt.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I"m just sayin’ that any and all public attention to Jeffs is only going to raise questions along the lines of “so, what is the deal with Mitt Romney” and “how does the LDS church differ, exactly, with guys such as Jeffs,” and none of that is going to be helpful to Mitt at all in a campaign to be President.
Mitt can buy a lot of buzz and pay for delegates to support him at straw polls like Michigan, but he just doesn’t connect with Main Street America. Too plastic. Too weird.
Straw polls at organized events are really not a good measure of how much support a candidate has generated. It just means Mitt is writing big checks to himself to finance his campaign. A classic self-licking ice cream cone.
sorry if this is too tangential to the theme of this thread, but the questions about Romney’s lack of military service, and his sons’, make me wonder: Are Mormons underrepresented in the military?
Catholics, I’m quite sure, are overrepresented, compared to their share of the general population.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, have a strong belief against serving in the military, I believe.
I don’t know of other disproportions seen in religious groups and military service.
Based on my own experience and reading, I have a tentative theory that among the several strains of pietistic evangelicalism and fundamentalism and Pentecostalism, there may be an underrepresentation in the military due to the theological teachings of separation from “the world,” with an often-corresponding lack (somewhat) of civic involvement and social responsibility in some areas, including running for office. Part of it is eschatology: if you believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket fairly soon, and that God wants it to, or at least ordained it in a sense, it sort of takes away some of the motivation to make this world, this society, this country, “better,” by, say, military service or holding “secular” (translate “unspiritual,” and worldly) office. “Let the dead bury the dead,” sometimes gets taken to an extent that can appear uncaring for this world and unbelievers.
I’m not condemning all people with all these beliefs; just pointing out what I think is a tendency. I may be wrong. (But I never have been, except once when I thought I made a mistake.)
Is it typical for Mormon men to do their two-year mission instead of military service. I think they got excused from the draft for it, right?
I’m not saying it’s good or bad, or faulting Romney: just a religious curiosity.
Is there any official LDS teaching on this?
Because of the obvious sensitivities in this area, I apologize beforehand if this appears as a “slam,” on the LDS church.
I’m really just asking.
I am curious too. Neither Mitt nor his 5 son’s served in the military. After High School (or college?) young Mormon men do the two year missionary bit. Then marriage is encouraged, since it is so important in Mormom theology. So, where exactly is the time for a 3-4 year military stint? In other works, are Mitt and the boys typical of LDS and the military, or the exception. Anyone know? Since Mitt wants to be Commander in Chief, I think it is a legitimate question.
Since Mitt wants to be Commander in Chief, I think it is a legitimate question.
Since Mitt is running for president the whole Mormon theology is a legitimate subject. This is political reality whether one likes it or not.
And again, like it or not, Mormon theology is very, very strange.
Sorry if this bothers all of the Romney supporters out there but you had better face this now or you will regret it later.
______________________________________________
As a side note: I have been a political junkie for a very long time and this is, by far, the weakest field of nominees that I have ever seen. No matter who is eventually nominated it will come down to holding one’s nose and pulling the anti-Hillary lever.
Sebastian: thank you for the reply. Interesting historical bits on the Mexican war, etc.
And I know that many Mormons are soldiers. And that Mormons are overrepresented (in my slightly educated guess) in high-level, professional strata of work and accomplishment, especially in government and, say, the FBI, maybe the Secret Service.
But, do you know if they are over- or underrepresented in the military?
Someone must have done a look at this including all larger religious traditions.
Quakers and Shakers and Amish and other Anabaptists such as Hutterites, I’m sure are underrepresented. Bet Buddhists, Hindus and Unitarians are, too.
Don’t ask me to explain why on the last three.
But it would be very interesting to parse all the numbers; Jews, Muslims, and the inner permutations: orthdox versus Reform Jews, versus nonobservant. Sunni vs. Shiite vs other Muslims;
Evangelicals vs. Pentecostals; vs. mainline Protestants.
Atheists, vs. Christians; vs. neo-pagans (we might be surprised)
Then: how much does military service change one’s religion?
So, there’s about 23 dissertations waiting to be done.
I could google stuff.
But instead I blather on here.
I rarely disagree with TT, but the prospect of Hillary and Bill back in the White House would make me crawl over broken glass to vote for even John McCain. The damage she would do to our economy alone is frightening not to mention the Supreme Court, and the war on terror. Do we really want Jamie Gorelick to be attorney general? Do we really want another Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court? And finally, do we really want a woman who loathes the military to be Commander in Chief? And border enforcement? Ha ha. This is woman whose husband pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists in order for her to get the PR votes in New York. Not to mention the grift and graft of her horndog husband. She loves power because of the money it brings her and he loves power because of the babes it gets him.
I don’t care who anyone votes for in the Republican primaries. To me, guns, gays, and God are not my vote motivators. Well, guns maybe, but if I had to choose between Hillary and Rudy on that, I would choose Rudy. But if the guns, gays, and God crowd stays home in order to prove their righteousness because Rudy is the nominee, then they deserve to be in political exile. It was *principled* voters who voted for Perot in 1990 who brought this diabolic duo to power to begin with.
On the other hand, I think Mitt appears plastic. He probably is not. I have no doubt he is smart. I have no reason to think he is not honest. The military question is interesting but not dispostive to me. I know that all Morman young men (maybe women too) must undertake a 2 year religious mission. Perhaps this explains why more Mormans are not in the military.
I am curious too. Neither Mitt nor his 5 son’s served in the military. After High School (or college?) young Mormon men do the two year missionary bit. Then marriage is encouraged, since it is so important in Mormon theology. So, where exactly is the time for a 3-4 year military stint? In other works, are Mitt and the boys typical of LDS and the military, or the exception. Anyone know? Since Mitt wants to be Commander in Chief, I think it is a legitimate question.
Mormon men are encouraged to serve missions before entering military service. But it is possible for Mormon men to serve a couple years and then take a couple years off for a mission before returning to military service. And being married doesn’t preclude military service.
Going on a mission, getting married, and serving in the military is nothing new to Mormons and very doable. (The “magic underwear” even comes in khaki and other military appropriate colors for those serving.)
The fact that none of Mitt’s 5 sons served in the military has more to say about what their individual career goals were than Mitt’s political ambitions. I guess they didn’t know their dad was going to run for President. I don’t think you can classify their choices as a typical Mormon or the exception. Probably has more to do with their generation and social, economic status.
The LDS church does not discourage military service and many of the highest ranking LDS leaders served in the military including some who had very successful military careers. There is nothing in Mormon theology that would suggest that Mormons would serve in less proportion than the general population.
As far as theology, the Book of Mormon is full of themes on warfare. The necessity to fight for the preservation of freedoms, country, religion, and family. The preservation of democracy versus kings and authoritarians. The need for defense, military intelligence, and superior weapons. The continued support of armies at war. The assassination of enemy commanders. The belief that American is a choice land; that the Constitution is a God inspired document.
Compare the conflict of the Nephites with the Gadianton Robbers and you’ll see the same fight between the USA and the Jihadists.
