|
 |
Posted on 05/04/2012 4:32:35 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
One of my 10 Commandments of Political Warfare states: Never Abandon Your Base (unless they’re morally wrong).
Yesterday, the Mitt Romney presidential campaign violated that commandment.
In what can only be described as one of the absolute dumbest things a Republican presidential nominee can say, unless that nominee is purposefully trying to throw his base under the bus, Romney campaign spokesman Eric “Etch-a-Sketch” Fehrnstrom described Christians who believe what the Bible says about marriage, gender identity, and sexuality is true as “voices of intolerance” within the Republican Party.
This is the sort of insidious put-down of Christians one would expect from the American Left, not a Republican nominee for president. There have been many stories in the media recently about Romney reaching out to social conservatives. If this is how the Romney campaign reaches out, I’d hate to see what a shunning looks like.
This prompts several questions.
Should Romney be criticized for validating “voices of intolerance” by agreeing to speak at Liberty University’s upcoming commencement?
Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s husband, Marcus, counsels those struggling with same-sex attraction in their family business. Yesterday Bachmann “enthusiastically” endorsed Romney for president. Does she know she endorsed for president a campaign that thinks she’s among the “voices of intolerance?”
Romney himself is a bishop in the Mormon Church, which has been steadfast in the defense of marriage and considers homosexuality a “sin” and “immoral.” The church also says that to permit homosexuality is to “make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.” Does the Romney campaign now see its candidate’s own church as one of the “voices of intolerance?”
Should Christian leaders who are currently or have been all along backing Romney consider themselves “voices of intolerance?”
Either somebody needs to be fired here, or the Romney campaign is persisting in a strategy that is going to ask Christians to choose between an election and the Word of God. If they persist in that strategy they will not like the answer they will get come November. It’s one thing to try and marginalize your base as Romney’s campaign has been attempting all along, but it’s entirely another thing to undercut them and betray them publicly like this.
This is the political equivalent of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which is the act of a traitor. At the same time Romney’s campaign is demanding loyalty pledges from its base, it’s describing its base as “voices of intolerance.”
This only confirms what I have been saying all along, the only group the Republican Party establishment loathes more than Democrats is its own base. In 2008 the GOP also ran a candidate who despised his own base, which prompts one more question.
How did he do?
|
|
Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. You’re going to have to try harder than this if you want to be, er, “severely conservative.”
Add Chrispie Cream or Daniels or some other rino to the ticket.
One Rino is bad enough. Add another and you are courting disaster.
McCain was smart enough to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate. Something the GOP-E ended up being aghast about - a woman who not just says we should end corruption and bloat, but MEANS it - and I don't see them letting Mitt do something like that this time around. Not that he would be inclined to do such.
Then explain the millions upon millions of Mormon dollars “voluntarily” donated to fight same-sex marriage in California. You can’t tell me Milt wasn’t hip-deep in that activity. Nothing has happened since the 1980’s within the LDS without Milt’s say-so. Or is he that two-faced?
I don’t want to post the whole thing again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2880020/posts?page=29#29
Interesting things going on behind the scenes while everybody speculates on which political idol will be crowned VP, its entirely possible an unknown element (and liberal) could be knighted.
It looks like Mormons weighed in on both sides of the issue. Are they by any means immune to the same kinds of struggles that felled the orthodox Christian mainlines? I don’t think so. And Mitt appears to be, sadly, on the libertine side of it.
It would be like Mitt to gag a maggot afresh, just when a sizable number of conservatives were getting ready to put vises on their noses.
Romney will side with Obama in the coming civil war. His job now is the same as McCain’s in 2008: losing. Should he accidentally win, he will become tax collector for the welfare state and consolidate the liberal hold on the Supreme Court.
Not picking Sarah as VP; except that we all hate bambi enough to elect a block of wood.
I’m not a Christian so why should I care? /s
LOL. It looks like Mitt is busting himself. TWO mainstream presidential candidates, both committing political harakiri. This would have been the time for a third party to try to actually be viable, had it prepared looking forward to this moment. (I think it’s way too late now.)
While Christians including obnoxious evangelicals like myself certainly still hope to sell you on the gospel, it seems you are even now aware of a masterful presence in the universe that wants things done one way and not another.
Nope. But that was an interesting take on my sarcasm.
His big money, super-pac, elitist, tea party haters will never stand for it.
Well: we all hate Bambi enough to elect a block of something, but it doesn’t smell like wood.
Does manure have flavors.
I won’t vote for this jerk off.
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.