Oven Mitt
Posted on 08/25/2006 6:27:25 AM PDT by Valin
Oven Mitt
The best part of McCain running and losing this year is that when he does lose, that will be the end of him. He's already pretty old to be running for President.
Six years from now, he's going to wish he wasn't so hard on W for trying to reform Social Security.
One can only conclude that these five whatevers recognize that evangelicals will have a hard time voting for someone who is a mormon and believes in a different Christ and a different way of salvation than they do themselves.
I'm an evangelical, and I'd have no real problem voting for him. At least I'd have no problem because he's a Mormon.
I vote on the candidate stand on the issues, and can the candidate win. As for other evangelicals, I can't really stop them from being silly. I can and will take them to task if they insist on doing and saying silly thing.
Valin,
I wouldn't argue that you will be alone in your choice. I argue that millions of evangelicals will not share your comfort in making that choice - and consequently, many swing states will go blue.
ampu
Indexing to Romney the RINO
Another flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal
Did you see his preposterously bad speech at the convention?
I wouldn't argue that you will be alone in your choice.
Only if it is allowed to go unrefuted.
You may be underestimating the savvy of Evangelicals
At this point I (like many others) have not decided who to support, I am leaning toward George Allen.
My point (and my only point) is we should not discount Mitt simply because he's a Mormon.
Which instance of pandering to radical liberals were you referring to here?
Most of Mitt's supporters say he's secretly conservative, he's just been a liberal in Massachusetts for political convenience, which is hardly commendable itself.
You forgot when he hung up on Rush Limbaugh during an interview. That was the nail in the coffin for McCain with a lot of hardcore conservatives.
I missed that one, but McCain eliminated himself from my book well before Iowa with McCain-Feingold, which to me is one of the three worst decisions the Supremes have ever handed down.
He should have run in '96, before he went completely nuts. Back then, I would have gladly voted for him. By 2000, he'd lost it.
Vman,
Here, is where we obviously disagree. I find great spiritual discomfort in the thought of voting for a mormon for reasons I stated in an earlier post.
I may be underestimating the savvy of evangelicals.
You may be misunderestimating (I love to write that) the theological convictions of your brethren.
Guess we see it differently and will continue to do so.
Numerically, what percent of evangelicals do you believe will vote for mitt? 75%, 80%, 90%?
It is estimated there are "ranging from forty-five million (fifteen percent) to Gallup’s forty-two percent or 126 million."
Let's take the small number of 45 million. Lets assume that 65% are registered to vote - which is 29.25 million evangelical voters.
It is estimated that 69% identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican. That is a bit over 20 million voters who would likely vote for a Republican candidate.
If a mitt-like mormon candidate is chosen to represent the party, I believe many of those voters will be placed in the uncomfortable position of choosing between voting for someone (as you view it) who shares many of their moral and fiscal beliefs... but to pull the lever, they have to swallow something significant with it... voting for a candidate who does not share their core beliefs. A difficult sell. A confused mind says no.
Of those 20 million evangelical, republican leaning voters, here's what you will theoretically lose by running a mitt-like candidate:
5% don't vote for mitt - 1 million lost votes
10% don't vote for mitt - 2 million lost votes
15% don't vote for mitt - 3 million lost votes
20% don't vote for mitt - 4 million lost votes
25% don't vote for mitt - 5 million lost votes
50% don't vote for mitt - 10 million lost votes
What the percent will be who cannot make themselves support a mitter I don't know. I do know I am one.
Given how close recent elections have been, it seems a significant risk for Republicans to take.
Well...that and he's a Rhino too.
best,
ampu
How about a JD Hayworth-Tancredo ticket?
If you were fooled by George Bush, you weren't paying attention when he ran and campaigned.
Yes, he waffled on CFR (because he would NOT kill McCain's baby and there are excuses for that, not reasons), but otherwise (few exceptions) he has been entirely predictable to what he presented himself as when he ran. Don't bother with the "he was against nation-building" c*#p. That was before 9-ll and before Iraq.
And it is the MILITARY'S classic Counterinsurgency strategy we are following in Iraq, not a civilian Bush-invented strategy. The Generals are telling Bush what they think, and he is listening.
WAAAAAAhhhhhhh!!!!! I voted for Bush and he BETRAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYED ME!!!!!
LOL
OTOH, I completely agree that Romney is the only one who has those elements you mentioned. So very, very vital, it's true. The others are terrible in that regard, no matter what else we might think of them.
Reagan's "conversion" didn't come on the eve of declaring a Presidential Run, did it?
No, I really don't believe in his "conversion". I think Romney is a political animal that does what it takes to win. My question is whether if he pledges one thing to conservatives, he'll keep that promise and not suddenly have another "conversion" later on. Whether he believes in what he pledges doesn't matter so much as what he'll do. Though having a core belief usually does guarentee certain action. I just wonder if Romney has core beliefs.
Can evangelicals vote for Romney? Sure. IMO, while there may be Christians uncomfortable with his chosen faith, it's not to the extent these stories warrant. I have a cynical belief a lot of this is being trumped up to make him a sympathetic figure and get his name out there by supporters. I could be wrong...
Just as I could be wrong a lot of people behind Romney..or other candidates are deliberately drawing our Allen's statement and expressing "horror" because they have him picked as the default Republican nominee. That's politics, but I wish they'd be honest about it.
I still think Allen, Romney and Newt all have an equal shot at the conservative nomination. With Santorum as a possible darkhorse depending on his '06 race. Of course someone else could enter no ones discussed as well. But it is interesting, from a cynical POV, watching politicians and their designates jockey for this nomination and pretend they are above the fray...LOL
Did George Bush campaign on promises that he would contrive the biggest entitlement in the history of the country adding trillions of dollars to our debt over the years and deceive the American Congress and the American people in the process about the cost for a prescription drug entitlement that was not even desired by the majority of elderly?
Did George Bush campaign on promises that he would mightily subsidize the farm belt?
Did George Bush campaign on promises that he would never veto a single bill, which of course includes spending bills?
Did George Bush campaign on promises and that he would succumb to cronyism in the appointment of key players in FEMA and even including a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America? (That was my jump the shark moment).
Did George Bush campaign on promises that he would utterly abdicate his responsibility to see that the laws are faithfully executed and then fail to enforce in any meaningful way any law designed to curb illegal immigration?
Sometime ago I posted these thoughts which go a long way to explaining how I feel about George Bush. I admire him and I greatly admire his family and I thank God that he won his last two elections. But he is not, even as William F. Buckley has written, a doctrinaire conservative, as I am. Here's what I said then and I stand by it now:
The problem with George Bush is that he is not primarily a conservative, he is primarily a Christian, and he does not have a calculus and that is congruent with yours or mine, even though both of us might be Christians.
George Bush sees partisan politics as petty and ultimately meaningless. We see partisanship as the indispensable stuff of freedom. At election time the Bushes will hold their nose and dip into partisanship. But it is not in their essential nature to wage war for tactical political advantage.
George Bush wants what Bill Clinton wanted: To fashion a legacy. He does not want to be remembered as the man who cut a few percentage points from an appropriation bill but as the man who reshaped Social Security. I've come to the conclusion that the Bushes see politics as squirmy, fetid. It must be indulged in if one is to practice statesmanship but it is statesmanship alone that that is worthy as a calling.
They are honest, they are loyal, they are patrician. There would've been admired and respected if had lived among the founding fathers. But it is Laura Bush and Momma Bush who really and truly speak for the family and who tell us what they are thinking and who they are. There's not a Bush woman who does not believe in abortion. They believe in family, they live in loyalty, they believe in the tribe, but they do not believe in partisan politics.
I believe it is time for us to decide no longer to be used by the Bush family as useful idiots and instead to begin to use the Bushes as our useful idiots . I say this with the utmost admiration and respect for everything the Bushes stand for. Who would not be proud beyond description to have a father or an uncle who was among the first and youngest of naval aviators to fight in the Pacific and to be twice shot down. Not a stain or blemish of corruption or personal peccadillo has touched the family(except for the brother whom I believe was cleared of bank charges). They are the living embodiment of all that is good and noble in the American tradition.
But they are not conservative.
He's presided over it.
And if he's too powerless and/or pusillanimous to do anything about it, what the heck kind of C-in-C would Romney make?!
Get back with me when he becomes unequivocally pro-gun.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/07/27/romneys_choice/
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.