Posted on 05/09/2006 9:45:06 AM PDT by Paul8148
Though well-respected, Novak and his sources are not free from a challenge, so let me do the challenging.
Are Novak and his sources implying that the most morally conservative voters in the United States would rather endorse a left-wing, abortion-endorsing, socialist-leaning, gay agenda-adopting, Bill Clinton-marrying, liberal than a God-fearing, card-carrying conservative Mormon, who has had remarkable success in business and in politics, and who has shown he is able to win a liberal state like Massachusetts? Either something is very wrong with Novak or something is very wrong with the Evangelicals he is interviewing.
Liberal stances and waffling on abortion, gays, guns, socialism to hurt Romney across America
The conservatives already didn't need Romney to win in 2008.
The Mormons already vote for conservatives in most areas where they are found in large blocks.
Thinking that Romney being a Mormon is a strength is pretty ridiculous.
Romney is a New Englander, which is the first thing to isolate himself from the southern voter. Second, the south will probably turn away from him simply because he is a Mormon.
I am not trying to start a flame war, but facts are facts.
So far George Allen is my man, but I'm not too enthused about anyone. I'm sure I'll learn more about Romney and the other candidates over the next year and will keep an open mind. However, I can say that the first time I saw Mitt I instinctively didn't trust him. His 1,000-watt permasmile and demeanor shouted used-car salesman or bad televangelist to me. Sure it's a gut feeling, but those count in politics. (The first time I saw Clinton I thought "sleazy, unethical manipulator" -- that turned out to be a little too accurate.)
Perhaps, but if Romney gets smear over him being Mormon can they sit home and swing NV or Col?
Right, he'll carry Utah and its three electorial votes.
You're too kind:
I might have called an effete Eastern liberal RINO commie pinko fag...
Oh, I get it. This author's reference above, along with another reference in this article to "the wacky far right" was meant to help the far right begin to cozy up to Romney.
It's not a smear, it's just human nature in a democracy. In a Polish Chicago neighborhood, a guy named Kowalski will do better than a guy named Himmler. In a Hispanic Catholic town in Texas, a stridently anti-pope Pentacostal probably wouldn't do too well. And, of course, a bob Jones-style fundamentalist Christian wouldn't do well in Provo. Does that mean that Provo LDS members are intolerant of others' beliefs? No, it just means they want someone "like them" to represent them.
Obviously LDS beliefs are not adopted (heck, they're barely understood) in greater America. You take an informal survey of folks in the northeast and they probably think that Mormons still practice polygamy. Romney's religion won't exclude him from the race, but it is unrealistic to hope it won't be an issue to any voters nationwide.
The writer is somewhat confused. Romney isn't married to Clinton. He has the rest of it right, however.
What I mean by smear is there is evidence (Files, Phone Messages to voters, ect) that a campign or outside group was attacking the fact he is a mormon, then I think they might be turn off by the election. If it just people deciding agisnt Romney on their own it be find.
First off, I love your tag line.
Secondly, I'm not so sure Hillary would do well in a general election. I don't know many Dems that like her. This is obviously anecdotal, but my mom has voted Dem in every election (even McGovern!). We always spar on politics and she just despises Hillary. She views her as a bossy, hectoring, elitist, annoying know-it-all (a rare point on which we agree). She will NEVER vote for her in a primary and would be hard pressed to support her in a general. If someone like McCain or Giuliani actually made it as the GOP nominee (or Veep), I could see her pulling the level for the Republicans.
I can't remember which comedian said it, but his line was, "the problem with Hillary is that she reminds you of your ex-wife." Now, I've never been divorced but I know exactly what he meant. She's a very unappealing personality.
Okay, let's do the math here. Mormons are 8% of the NV population. But they supposedly represent 20% of the voting block.
What's wrong with this analysis?
(1) LDS may be 8% of the NV population, but it's not 8% of the NV voting age population. Everyone knows that LDS have more children than the avg. family. Based on the likelihood that for every LDS adult there are almost 2 LDS minors, LDS are probably 5% to--at best--7% of the NV voting age population.
(2) Let's just say for argument that LDS had 8% of the NV voting age population. And let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that every LDS adult turned out to vote in NV. That would mean that for LDS to represent 20% of the turnout, that the overall turnout was 40%. That might be on par for non-presidential elections, but 2004 saw an increase in voter turnout.
Therefore, is this author trying to say that LDS turnout was 90-100% in NV??? Please note you can go to this Web site & rate this article [down].
Anyway, you can't turn LDS being about 6-7% of the adult voting age population into three times its number of the overall voter turnout unless you want to claim that only 30-35% of Nevada voters turnout and that LDS turn out 95-100% of its base.
and, of course, you have the new jet-setters of country music fame that will stomp around showing how countrified they are.....
I am thinking we are going to see a huge backlash against these people....
I wouldn't vote for Romney in a primary, because of his left-of-me stances on many things. But naturally, if it came down to a race between him and Hillary, he'd get my vote.
We all know that the gay agenda's been stopped in MA ever since Romney took over as gov.
"I am thinking we are going to see a huge backlash against these people...."
Of course, TN gave us Senator Thompson, and voted against Gore in 2000.
We are in their debt for that. However, they elected a democrat to the governorship. That says something.
Romney gets a smear because he is a liberal Republican and getting sick and tired of Mormans trying to say otherwise. I don't like Romney's stance on issues and all of a sudden I am then going to be accused of not supporting him because he is Morman.
That's a load of Bravo Sierra along with pushing if you don't vote for him it is because he is Morman is not going to work. I will work to defeat him 24/7 in my State because I don't like the man's stand on issues. In fact, I will not vote for someone from MA period, and I don't care what the religion or the party.
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.