Posted on 06/05/2005 9:55:00 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
THE LAST presidential campaign ended just seven months ago. Does any sensible American -- a category that excludes political junkies and newspaper columnists -- want to read a long magazine article speculating on the next one?
The Weekly Standard and National Review, two of the nation's most influential conservative magazines, clearly think the answer is yes. Each is running a cover story on the presidential prospects of Governor Mitt Romney. Terry Eastland's 6,000-word piece in the current Weekly Standard is introduced by a humorous cover illustration of a smiling Romney surrounded by donkeys. ''Mitt Romney of Massachusetts," it says. ''Can a Republican governor of a Democratic state become America's first Mormon president?" Eastland's conclusion: Quite possibly. ''Romney would make an appealing candidate," he writes. ''He just might be 'the right guy at the right time.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
That is so sad.
I know political junkies have been thinking a lot about a GOP 2008 Presidential candidate. There are few outstanding names that leap to mind. If nothing else, I think this airing of Mitt gets the juices flowing. There are names, there are leaders that could win in 2008.
"A second problem is Romney's religion. Both Eastland and Miller cite a 1999 Gallup poll in which 17 percent of respondents said they would never vote for a Mormon candidate. Some of that is bigotry, some simply ignorance, akin to the bigotry and ignorance that would once have kept a Catholic like John Kerry or a Jew like Joseph Lieberman off a national ticket."
-----
The above is a snippet from the article. While many do have problems with the Mormon faith and its tennants, I certainly take issue with the author in his latter statement. While I clearly understand the author's point, it was not IGNORANCE AND BIGOTRY that once would have kept certain liberals off the ticket...it was an INFORMED AMERICA that defeated the lying reprobate Kerry, and Lieberman, the only candidate that could have WON against Bush, was kept off the ticket because he was NOT a frothing radical Marxist.
So my point is that ignorance and bigotry were never the source of the Dem's problems -- they are actually assets to furthering the radical left's Marxist agenda...very misplaced adjectives.
Point is that Lieberman has been on a national ticket. In 2000. That was historic.
I think Jacoby's references to Kerry and Lieberman had everything to do with their religions, and nothing to do with the fact that they are Democrats, or, I agree with you, the former's Marxism and the latter's lack of it.
I'm a Catholic, but I have a ton of Evangelical friends. My impression is that a great many Evangelicals would draw the line at voting for a Mormon for president. That pretty much eliminates Romney right there, because without that vote he can't possibly win.
The official name of the Mormons is the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Up until recently, the emphasis was pretty much on Latter Day Saints. But in recent years, Mormon leaders have been putting in a claim to be Christians, so there is more of an emphasis on the first part of the name.
For those interested in some of the theological difficulties, there's a useful article in First Things from a few years ago, written by Father Neuhaus, "Is Mormonism Christian?"
Here's the article. If you search the website for "Neuhaus Mormon" you'll find some of the letters written in reply.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0003/public.html#mormonism
I bet most people would like to take a break from presidential politics after the recent election, but because Hillary Clinton is running and is reworking her positions daily to seem moderate and she and her husband are already sucking up most of the media attention, Republicans really have to think seriously about their next candidate.
Will he be re-elected if he runs in '06?
I was pretty confident that he would be, but all the national attention I'm afraid is hurting him at home.
Supporting abortion and gay marriage would kill his chances among anyone with half an ounce of decency.
My money will be with either George Allen or Sam Brownback--two quality guys. Either will stomp McCain in the primary.
Last night C-span aired a commencement speech Brownback gave at a Catholic university--very impressive.
www.christendom.edu/news/gradspeeches05.shtml#sam
What exactly is so RINO ish about Romney?
He's been more fiscally conservative in the deepest blue state, with a legislature that's more then 2/3rds the opposing party, then a lot of Red State Governors, and he's conservative on virtually every social issue as well.
The only thing you can really point to, is that he said 'As Governor, I will support a woman's right to chose' which essentially just said 'Yah, it's a completely lost cause in my state, and it's a federal issue mostly anyway, so I'm not even going to bother tipping at windmills.'
Which, in my book anyway, isn't RINOish as much as it is just smart.
Romney isn't my first choice for President, although he's looking better and better, but he'd be a fine VP pick, and I certainly wouldn't mind him being President.
Allen is my favorite candidate at the moment as well. I think Romney's extensive business experience would make him a fine VP pick though.
I guess we can be glad he doesn't support either then.
Not that I'm defending Mormon ideology, I'm not, I think it's screwed up too, but I think you are being unfair.
MOST of the prophets in the bible are insanely screwed up. King David had hundreds of wives and concubines, and had people he didn't like murdered, including a husband of a woman he wanted to sleep with. I know David wasn't a prophet, but he was 'A man after God's own heart' and was held up as an example in many ways.
So I don't think it's fair, even if you don't agree with the person's choice of religion, to simply say that 'their religion holds up this person I don't like, therefore I can't support them', that mirrior can be turned around too easily.
He's a gun grabber, for one thing. And his unnecessary use of the phrase "woman's right to choose" (normal people don't talk that way) shows not only that he doesn't want to fight that battle, but that he has completely accepted the abortion lobby's ideology that abortion is a "right".
Also, though he's nominally opposed to same-sex marriage, he's in favor of "civil unions", which for amounts to the same thing for all intents and purposes, and which in fact will just be a gateway to the exact same thing formally.
I voted for Mitt, probably will again, but he is not confrontationalist enough. He need to breath fire, so what if he pisses off a few voters, he would pick up more.
He seems to moving to the left for his reelection bid, the death of Republicans in Mass. If all of the hot button issues of the last 40 years had been put on the ballot, how many would have passed? Mitt is making the same mistakes that Republicans in this state have made since Volpe the cycle continues.
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.