Skip to comments.MSNBC's O'Donnell on Romney's "Mormon Problem": How Moronism Was "Invented"
Posted on 04/07/2012 2:48:46 PM PDT by NorthernCrunchyCon
And so begins the MSM turn on the Republican nominee. And as much as I hate to credit the MSM, and particularly O'Donnell, I cannot find anything in his rant that is inaccurate, other than the number of wives Joseph Smith claimed. O'Donnell says 48, but I believe the most consistent number put forward by historians is 27. On the other hand, Brigham Young claimed 56 wives, so O'Donnell is certainly within range.
"MSM pwns Romney over Mormonism"
had to be replaced with the published title at the source.
Please do not make up your own title, nor alter any published titles.
Made-up titles and altered titles interfere with other Posters' ability to use Free Republic's search engine. Also we're trying to reduce the number of threads we have to pull.
Vote for a third-party candidate and work on getting more conservatives elected to Congress and at the state level.
It will the Republicans in Congress and the job of the courts to stop him if he tries that. The Presidency is not a dictatorship and if Obama tried to make it one, measures can be taken to stop him.
HE IS A LIBERAL! Why can't you concede that?
I could give a rip what he believes, He has to be better than “THE ONE” currently at the helm.
What evidence is there of that?
The part the owns the White House almost always loses seats in Congress. That will especially be true with Romney in the White House selling out conservatives on issue after issue. We'd maintain or gain seats in Congress if Obama is re-elected.
We're stuck with a Romney or another Democrat for eight years instead of just four more with Obama.
RINOs in Congress are much more likely to betray conservatives with a liberal Republican in office than they are when a Democrat is in office. Romney will have a much easier time passing liberal legislation that Obama, especially with a shrinking number of Republicans in Congress.
So, tell us why, then, Romney is an improvement.
When your third party school board member gets to nominate a replacement for Scalia or Kennedy or Ginsburg let me know. In the meantime the clock is ticking.
Cause he ain’t my guy.
He is Moroni’s guy.
Not one GOP effort has been taken to stop anything he’s done so far.
What in the world would give you even one tiny indication the GOP would stop anyone about anything. When would you expect them to start, if they haven’t already?
Obama needs to lose the next election. Whoever is our candidate, even if ineffectual, won’t be an aspiring dictator.
Pretty much, whomever is our candidate will, once in office, spend most of their time defending themselves from a hostile MSM.
THAT is the difference between (any) Republican and Obama.
Obama has his very own national media, operating as his inhouse propaganda operation.
No Republican will have that power.
So no Republican will ever, be as bad as Obama.
Nor nearly so entrenched.
A GOP win in 2012, will mean a GOP challenger can be found and brought forward starting right now for 2016.
An Obama re-election may mean America is finished.
Stark choice. Focus people.
I guess you missed the part where Jim Robinson has declared there will be no campaigning for Romney on FR
I'm quite sure he means no front door OR back door campaigning for Mitt. Just sayin'.
Oh for crying out loud.
I am for DEFEATING OBAMA.
I can take direction from the owner of this site just fine thank you, and have chosen my words deliberately exactly because of his clearly stated position.
Let’s not devolve into groupthink please.
The name of this site ... starts with the word “Free”.
The Supreme Court for one. There is a very good chance that the next President will be replacing at least Ginsburg. She is far left, loony liberal and even replacing her with a squishy Kennedy-like moderate would be a VAST improvement. And ofcourse there is the chance the next President will replace one of the conservatives if they get sick, die, etc. Just the chance to replace Ginsburg with even a centrist will shift the balance on the court. And considering conservatives have had some hard learned lessons about court appointments, it is even possible Romney would be forced to cater to the right (as Presidents often do with court appointments) and nominate some real conservatives.
I get your long view reasoning. I understand the point that sometimes being in opposition is better than being stuck having to defend a standard bearer that doesn't really represent the base. We had a lot of that under Bush when he was busy pushing NCLB and an entire new prescription drug entitlement.
Unfortunately, I've lived too many places in the world and seen too much damage caused by split opposition that couldn't stop a leftist because they refused to unite. Times change, the issues at the forefront of politics will change, there is just no telling what the next 4 years will bring. All we may get out of Romney is someone that slows down the march to the left. Quite frankly, given the choice in front of us - that is enough for me. Willard is better than Obama if for no other reason than he answers to a different constituency. He may do 7 bad things for every 3 he does good. With Obama it will always just be 10 bad things. In life, sometimes you have to be pragmatic.
It made sense to me to be fiercely opposed to Romney in the primaries. We lost. We have a nominee. He is a RINO. I don't buy your argument that he IS a liberal. I think he was a liberal when it was politically expedient, I think he will be more centrist to center right as a President relying on Republicans for support. Sitting out because a mushy moderate won the nomination is no better than mushy moderates sitting out because a conservative won the nomination. We have a 2 party system with no possibility of coalition building. Most of the time the average voter will be forced to vote for the proverbial lesser of 2 evils. Try to change the system if you want, but until then this is the reality.
Paranoia is starting to set in. I have not been paying attention but it looks like a new missionary group has been called to serve. Love it when that happens. Tick, tick tick.
Have you ever considered, many of us just don’t want Obama re-elected?
It’s baffling to me, some could actual consider that to be a preferred outcome.
Then, many of those same would accuse anyone who wants a GOP victory over the most wild-eyed socialist bunch of dictator wannabes in American history, of drinking the kool-aid.
It’s not always about Romney. For many of us, it’s simply about defeating Obama. No more, no less.
Is opposing Obama, to become politically incorrect here? That would be truly weird.
Troubling, and weird.
MSNBC’s O’Donnell is a lying sack of you know what. Why would you believe this and not another thing he has to say?
To start with Joesph Smith was 14 and living with his parents when it all started. The 27 number is close, My G. G. G. grandmother was one of them. There where many many more women than men and they sure were not going to run a Singles Club. Something had to be done.
Some of you that have so much time to bash everything Mitt and Mormon, how do you find to save your own souls? Or is that not a problem?
This might come as a surprise to many of you basher’s BUTT on Sunday or any other day we never ever mention other religions other than the Jews in a historical sense only. We work on saving our own souls and not trying to say clever things about people we do not know.
Mitt Romney most likely did not play baseball in the street or hide and seek after dark, BUTT he was born here and grew up in country. That is a giant leap forward for the next four years. Rick Santorum while he pounds his chest about being a Conservative, has all the stage presence of a guy running for town council in a small town.
The object is to throw the BUM out, NOBAMA in 12
I agree. Why are you posting this to me? I think MSDNC, O'Donnell and all this Mormon bashing is disgraceful.
It will be the epitome of stupidity to have a member of a racist church running against a black man, as we have been saying since '07. Do you think the wail of "we stopped that racism in 1978" is gonna be a winner? FAIL
Has the John Derbyshire flap completely escaped your notice? It is currently in Breaking News. What about Trayvon?
Considering this is the Religion Forum, what about mormonism that has been said is incorrect.
Unless you know about mormonism, and Romney how on earth do you expect to defend that sitnk’n liberal Romney.
Romney is a mormon, he is who he is because of his mormonsim not in spite of it, if you wish to defend him from “unfair” attacks you better learn what mormonism actually is.
With all due respect, he’s mopped the floor with all his opponents so far.
Look I dislike Romney. I believe he’s the reason Obama is in office right now.
I think he’s manipulative. I believe he right away in 2008, after ending that campaign, immediately sensed Sarah Palin was an existential threat to his plan to run again this year - and for that reason only - sent his operatives to undermine Palin, and so doing cost the GOP the election.
That in my mind was reprehensible, and it does seem to this poster to have been what happened. Others may disagree.
However there’s not much doubt at this point, Romney’s ruthlessly competitive. Machiavellian. I believe he can indeed beat Obama.
I don’t like him, but I’m starting to respect him just for being so efficiently ruthless.
Frankly, the GOP needs a bit of ruthless for a change.
I will once again say honestly I’m not on this board to praise Romney, except to the extent he opposes Obama.
Which he’s now doing. So I’m stuck with him.
He’s an SOB, but if he’s the GOP’s SOB I really have no other stand to make.
I’m going with Obama’s opponent. That simple.
And yes, he clearly can win.
Did I say that was a preferred outcome? Your logic is dumbfounding in thinking that Mitt is the One.
There is still a lot of time and if we can get to a brokered convention real conservatism might just reign in the idiots promoting brother Romney. Texas will be changing the rules regarding total delegates. That could be key.
Romney might still be the nominee, however we do not need to endorse him just yet or ever. Your obvious enthusiasm is pretty silly at this point. Jim Robinson was here last summer for the Freeper picnic. A very fine man. His perspective on Romney is correct and I too support him!
The reason of course is the R vs the D after the name, the reality is they are the same.
mormonism is much more liberal than the PR machine in SLC wants the public to beleive.
Romney is a liberal because he is a mormon not in spite of it.
Romney is a temple mormon, before you defend it, find out what it really is.
I’d really like someone other than Romney as our nominee.
I’d really like Obama to lose the next election, even more.
Before you defend Romney and his candidacy learn about mormonism.
Romney is a liberal because he is a mormon not in spite of it.
If that is true, then stop the pandering.
What opposition to BHO?
Romney destroys conservatives yet says BHO is just a guy in over his head.
Seriously do you really think he will be as ruthless towards BHO as he has been towards conservatives?
Believe what you will.
I oppose Obama. Period.
Whoever can defeat Obama, I’m for.
Big deal. We all do. Aren't you speshul?
I suppose we shall see. I see a lot of waffling toward Obama so far.
There are only 211 more days until the election.
If I have a rattlesnake slithering on my floor as well as a cottonmouth, I am going to set about reducing both of them to crushed meat pulp. Neither of the reptiles is ‘mine’.
No, Texas is not going to be changing the rules regarding delegates. The RNC already made plain that they won't allow that. It's just grasping at straws and it will not happen. Santorum's campaign is pushing this stuff to create some buzz and interest, but the reality is Texas will not be allowed to change the way delegates are awarded.
Something else seems to have escaped your notice...the egregious bias of the elite RNC, the republican pols that owed Mitt for donations to their campaigns and causes and paid off in endorsements, and not the least the openly pimping of media such as Fox news, Drudge Report, National Review on and on.
In some areas the lock-step mormon vote gained him delegates and mormon money has funded his super PAC. He had a whole lot of help in his "mopping the floor" and his millions and the millions of his mormon allies paid for it.
When you come on FR to defend Romney, it's best that you take off your blinders and really see what has been going on under your nose.
I’ll be damned. I hate it when that happens.
OK I’ll say again I’m not on FR about Romney.
Believe it or don’t believe it. Up to you.
Have a nice Easter.
Since you are so confident of this, I'm sure you can provide a source to verify it. Please.
Ok, cring then stop defending Romney and his stink’n liberalism.
Have a nice Easter.
And a blessed Easter to you also. ;0)
“An Obama re-election may mean America is finished. Stark choice. Focus people.”
As I and others keep telling you. The “stark choice” isn’t there. Romney is NO better, and could be worse in many ways as pointed out by others here.
Also, since you like “facing facts.” Romney, among Republicans, seems to either induce extreme revulsion (like in my case) or apathy. He will not win in a general election because the base of the party won’t vote for him...even against Obama. Many are considering not voting or voting third party. Those that actually “like and support” him actively, are a minority (mainly Anne Coulter who I suspect wants to be one of his wives!).
At best he may get passive support. That isn’t enough to overcome Obama. He is toast before he even starts. Also, I’m afraid that his “ho-hum” reception will hurt conservative Republicans running for the House and Senate.
The man is a disaster. I don’t know how anyone can stomach even passive support. However, I do know that an “Anybody but Obama” support is not enough to win. That “stark contrast” you mentioned really needs to exist....it doesn’t with Romney. His candidancy will result in the most lopsized loss by the GOP ever.
What are the alternatives? To actively oppose him now and continue to do so....force the RNC to reform. Romney is going to lose anyway. Conservatives MUST get control of the RNC or we need to refuse to back there picks. We are not dumb sheep.
Time for a serious revolution.
Meeting the kids and grandkids for dinner in Saint George tomorrow at a very fine Italian restaurant(so they say). I hope they have ham on the menu. Wouldn’t be Easter without ham.
“Lets not devolve into groupthink please.”
My friend, an ABO mindset is also a “groupthink.”
Can you not grasp that a great many here consider Romney no better than Obama? You cannot change that thinking, because it is based upon truth. He is no better, and he cannot win anyway. So, why support him instead of fighting the establishment to stop making us take the “lesser of two evils” - which in this case isn’t so.
No one here is going to vote for Obama. His epic worthlessness is not disputed. We want him gone also, but not at the price of surrending to Romney as the candidate for the GOP. That is a serious afront to conservatives of ALL stripes. It cannot be allowed anymore. IF it takes a walkout on the GOP establishment’s choice...then so be it.
Summary: We don’t agree with you that Romney is better than Obama. We won’t support him.
> So you want Romney to lose to Obama, because you dont like Mormons?
What I want is for conservatives to stop losing to the Romneys/Doles/Specters/GOPe/RINOs.
As far as Romney vs. Obama, there’s an old Biblical principle that “Satan cannot cast out Satan”. Likewise, Romney cannot cast out Obama.
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
“It will the Republicans in Congress and the job of the courts to stop him if he tries that. The Presidency is not a dictatorship and if Obama tried to make it one, measures can be taken to stop him.”
Exactly! And they will be. We won’t accept a candidate that fails to live up to minimal standards of acceptance out of fear of a known evil (Mr. Obama).
Romney is not satan.
You thinking that Romney is going to be better than Obama on judicial appointments is bogus. Go back and read post 35 by SoConPubbie.
Amazing how people don’t want to face the truth. Romney - even IF he could get elected - won’t make better appointments. At best we will get another “Justice Souter” or worse.
Your fear of Obama’s picks are real and justified. However, your thinking that Romney is in anyway a solution is specious.
The thing is, it won’t be four years of Romney, it will be 16. My cousin’s family went through this in Canada, where a Romney type got into power and it took conservatives about 20 years to rebuild a conservative movement.
If Romney wins, it will be eight years or Romney followed by either years of a Democrat White House after Romney’s Obamaesque policies taint the Republican brand. Not to mention all the GOPe and RINOs pointing out Romney’s victory as the death of conservatism and the only way forward for the GOP.
I agree with everything you say here.
It’s not Obama personally that needs to be beaten, but his policies. Ordinarily the easiest way to be a politician’s policies is to beat the politician and the polls. But in this case Obama’s main opponent is Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts is just as liberal if not more so than Obama’s presidential record.
So conservatives need to work for Newt and Santorum to try and defeat Romney before convention. In the event that Romney still gainst the nomination, conservatives should support a third party at the top and work vigorously for conservative Republicans downticket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.