Posted on 05/07/2007 7:26:37 AM PDT by meandog
Washington pundits in the throes of post-election doldrums are notoriously eager to find a fresh face to crown the "early favorite" for the next presidential campaign. Even by those standards, however, the speed with which they flocked to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been remarkable. Last December, barely a month after Bush's reelection, George Will devoted a column to Romney's potential, and a quick succession of profiles in the Weekly Standard, National Review, and The Atlantic Monthly appeared in the spring. Who could blame them? Romney has had a successful business career (he is known to most Americans as the man who saved the Salt Lake City Olympics). He comes from noble moderate Republican lineage (his father was governor of Michigan). He is attractive (the National Review sighed over his "chiseled handsomeness"). And he grabbed national headlines--and the attention of social conservatives--by standing up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage. Just as Democrats are always looking for a liberal nominee from a red state, Republicans dream about a candidate like Romney: a social conservative from the most cerulean of blue states who can please the base while not scaring off moderates.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonmonthly.com ...
Romney is our Kerry. Rudy is our Hillary. Let’s forget about these guys and nominate a Reagan instead.
That's right. Scouting. Mitt Romney thinks your kids should have a gay scout leader. Not that gays would ever, ever, do anything inappropriate with boys. Or set an example for them.
Not a hunting guy
Are you calling Mitt a liar? He's a "lifelong hunter"!
Mitt would never lie. You take that vicious accusation back.
Wow.
Your FR page is awesome.
Keep up the good work!!!!!!
At least get the picture of Miss USA and Miss Israel working again...
If he’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him.
My preference is Hunter, who is in my opinion the genuine conservative running. Thompson is my #2 choice.
But my only “not not but heck no” is McCain. Romney isn’t McCain, and so he is not disqualified in the general in my opinion, if he comes out on top in the primary.
My problem with Romney is that he is a “kinder gentler” conservative, and I’m looking for bold. I love Bush, but I’ve had enough of the “kinder gentler” conservatism, and I’m ready for a scrapper. More specifically, I’m looking for a war-president, as the war is my bottom line.
My opinion is that the “mormon/evangelical” problem is an invention. I don’t know any evangelicals that are opposing him on that basis. The only concern is that, maybe, he’s not conservative enough. But religion is as far as I can tell not a factor. I am therefor suspicious of writers trying to make it into one.
I don’t think the Mormon church’s belief is a black/white as the Catholic church. The Mormon church shies away from making overt political stands or statements. Abortion is certainly considered to be an evil act, but it is not in my opinion equated with murder. The Mormon church has stepped forward to be very vocal about its opposition to same sex marriage. I suspect there would be some toleration for domestic partners. In my opinion the Mormon church is a little more Libertarian than conservative when it comes to such issues, though lines are certainly drawn when the Church elders feel the sanctity of the family is threatened (by the ERA or same sex marriage).
I'm going to disagree here with that point in this sense...
Evangelicals view Mormonism as a cult. There are plenty of threads on FR that detail why. That is quite different than someone like Reagan, who was a Christian Disciples of Christ. Or someone who is in a Christian church. Or someone who is Jewish.
Not all evangelicals will turn up their nose at Mitt - especially versus the Hildabeast. The problem is that millions will in fact stay home. We can argue that this is short-sighted, or stupid or whatever, but that probably will not change the reality of the situation. Bush II squeaked by last time. We will need the 4 million who stayed home the last time, to win this time, imo.
For many (not all) evangelicals, the choice will between voting FOR what they perceive as evil (Hillary or similar) OR voting FOR someone who shares many of their concerns, but is in a cult. This will be troublesome for many. It will certainly not be energizing to many in that block. There will, of course be those who hold their nose, trust God to work out the details, and pull the lever for the guy who shares many of their values, but is in a cult. But in the back of their mind, pulling the lever will be EQUAL to endorsing a cult. Some will make that leap. Some won't.
I suggest that if Republicans are planning on winning with Mitt, they're going to need one heck of an innovative strategy.
best, ampu
The REPUBLICAN group had a choice between Teddy the Democrat or the Republican and they chose the Republican.
What’s so hard to understand?
This message needs to be repeated often. A primary vote for Romney could be a general election vote for Shillary. I don't want to waste my vote.
So that's why the two Bushes won. Christians only voted for an "all" candidate and therefore wound up with "nothing."
You are the one not following. Support and endorsement are two different criteria with the Log Cabin Republicans. An endorsement has to be applied for. That application process then goes to their review board. The candidate has criteria to meet and a contract is signed. There are terms in their contract and the candidate is then assigned a campaign council from the Log Cabins.
I want to know what criteria was met by Mitt Romney. I think that is a fair question since he is seeking our support.
In my opinion, if Mitt wins the primary and Hillary is the dem candidate, we’re looking at another 4-8 in the slammer with a President Clinton! I didn’t do anything wrong to get prison time and that’s what America will be under her watch...
Napolitano's campaign would look like softball compared to the Hillary/Obama/media bombardment.
Way to go. Way to offend millions.
Way to just label every Christian as some pagan that worships a death instrument.
Where are the legions of LDS who are quick to point out "anti-Mormon" statements now? Where are they to highlight this "anti-Christian" statement?
Wanna explain the difference between the angel blowing a trumped upon a certain building in Salt Lake City and the cross on any given Christian church? Are they all just "objects of worship?"
They have one - he's the most physically attractive candidate, which is good for taking several million shallow voters away from the Democrats right off the top. ;)
There is a third alternative, which given the angry, ego-fueled rhetoric from both sides seems the most likely.
Only in Mormonism do we find this peculiar doctrine of the atonement being carried out in part via the sweat glands of Jesus (sweating blood in Gethsemane). Yes, the sweating blood happened, but no other historical documents or commentators that I'm aware of link this to an act of atonement or reconciliation.
I guess the more attention taken away from Calvary--and projected onto other locations, the more the enemies of the cross are satisfied. And the more attention that is taken off of the cross, the more its enemies are satisfied.
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.