Posted on 05/20/2007 2:54:16 PM PDT by Reaganesque
The new Des Moines Register poll shows an AMAZING jump for Romney up to 30%!!! He has a double digit lead over Giuliani and McCain (17% and 18% respectively). This is among "Likely Republican Caucus-goers" and exclude unannounced possible candidates (F. Thompson and Newt namely).
However, these figures are far from "set in stone":
The race at this early stage could take many twists and turns before the Iowa finish line is reached in January.
Twelve percent of those polled are undecided or declare themselves uncommitted. Among those stating a preference, 87 percent say they could still be persuaded to support another candidate as their first choice.
Why is he surging? Some ideas below:
Romney’s front-runner status in the new Des Moines Register poll could stem in part from solid performances in the two national debates, his work in building a network of supporters in Iowa, his fundraising prowess and money spent on TV ads, said J. Ann Selzer, The Register’s pollster.
“His success raising money seems to have aroused caucusgoers’ interest, prompting them to take a serious look at the candidate,” Selzer said. “He’s helped by the top two qualifications Republican caucusgoers are looking for in a candidate — experience as a governor and as CEO.”
The poll shows Romney is regarded favorably by 74 percent of likely caucus participants and unfavorably by just 13 percent, with the rest unsure how they feel about him.
He does better in the poll among older Iowans, who tend to be more faithful in attending the caucuses, than he does among younger ones. Roughly one-third of those 55 or older make him their first choice, compared with support from about one-fifth of adults younger than 35.
Some opinions from participants:
Republican caucusgoers place a premium on a candidate who has experience as a governor, with 60 percent saying they are more likely to support a person with that experience on their resume.
“Just being elected out east, where the hard core of the Democrats are, speaks pretty highly of” Romney, said poll participant Edward Green, 57, of Davenport.
“He’s got a good family and his children are on the right track,” said Green, a minister who does missions work for Assemblies of God International.
Green wonders, however, whether Romney — a Mormon — can win the Republican nomination because of his religion. “People will poke and prod at his religion — a lot like they did with Kennedy in the ’60s.” John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, was the first Catholic elected president.
Most likely Republican caucus participants — 71 percent — say it makes no difference in their choice of a candidate if that person would be elected the first Mormon president. However, 22 percent say that would make their support for the candidate less likely.
Six percent say electing the first Mormon president would make them more apt to support that person and 1 percent are unsure.
-----
Iowa is a nice microcosm proving that those who get to know Romney . . . like Romney. His campaign is picking up steam and will be hard to derail. Full steam ahead to the Ames Straw Poll!!!
I love it when that happens....
Romney has addressed this issue dozens of times, to little avail with detractors.
He takes a constitutional stance on this matter, which gives the Boy scouts the freedom to associate, but even as a member of the board of the BSA, Romney’s personal view is that nobody should be discriminated against, which is also the constitutional and supreme court view on discrimination.
What this really means is the the BSA has a legal constitutional right to limit membership in any one of a dozen or so ways, if it so chooses without violating the discrimination clauses.
Romney holds the same view that a majority of SCOTUS does, and it’s not hard to relate to, but some folks choose to have a problem with it.
“You flatter yourself.”
Oh, I wasn’t referring to me. I was talking about the Boy Scouts issue. Your response to me just appeared to exemplify your mood at having had the credibility of your sources so ruthlessly brought into question.
I’ve been wrong before, but it’s been a while since I was THAT wrong.
Look it up!!! LOL!
About a hunnert thousand missionaries wouldn't hurt, either.
yitbos
“...but some folks choose to have a problem with it.”
Indeed. Many (certainly not all, most likely not a majority) of the Romney critics I have encountered in the last few weeks have built a framework of political criticism on top of their visceral reaction toward his religion. For such an edifice, any source of timber will do, it seems, be it oak or deadwood. They’re just so desperate to find political traction against him because fundamentally, they know their religious bigotry is wrong and they’ve just -got- to cover it up any way they can.
In such a frame of mind, -any- evidence against the candidate - no matter the degree of speciousness - fits their preconception of him, and so they latch on.
Now, some of the criticism of Romney is warranted; it’s something he’ll have to come to grips with if he’s to convince the base of his conservative credentials. But I’m learning to spot the red flags that indicate that a given opponent’s view is not entirely political in nature. Such people simply have to be conquered on the ideological battlefield; there’s no swaying them.
Thanks for looking up this Boy Scouts stuff. It was most informative. It’s amazing how the tiniest bit of context - in this case, that volunteers under 18 were proscribed - brings a whole different light to a given assertion. It makes one question the intellectual honesty of the entire list, if an item is slipped in despite such an obvious omission.
Would you have preferred that I edit it out for effect???? It is what he said, and it is pertinent because the phrase without the context I which it was spoken, has been used surreptitiously to defame him.
At the same time he said that as a board member of the BSA, he believed that the BSA had every right to do what they saw fit under Constitutional Law, but he also believes that no person should be discriminated against by law, and that would include Keyes supporters as well.
But I might object to that at this time.:-)
Think real hard, (without getting a headache) anf define your position on this, if you will. I cannot magine any other position to take without running afoul of the constitution and the discrimination laws. Romney happens to be a lawyer.BTW
The BSA served as individuals, but did not participate as a group, as volunteers for the event. They did participate in many other ways, and the Church of the Latter Day Saints is one of the largest church supporters of the BSA. Nearly every church has a Troop or Pack.(Even the ones we have in Arkansas.) I can attest to this personally, since I was once affiliated with the BSA.
ARRRGH.....New key board here, so I’m dropping a few letters here and there...sorry about that.
Indeed, I’m LDS myself, so I’ve been a Scouter since I was a little tyke. One of the greatest organizations in the world, especially in this day and age when we seem to be forgetting about boys and so many are growing up without the value structure they need to become good men. The outdoorsy stuff is gravy. The values are why the LDS Church embraces the program - and that support (along with that of many other Christian denominations) is a key part of why the BSA refuses to admit gays into the program as adult leadership.
It does say a lot about Romney that he was so intimately involved with the program for so long. It’s one thing I like about him.
Again, he took both sides of the issue in one breath. How can you gloss over that fact?
That post shows you doing exactly what you accuse others of...making this a religious issue.
In fact, my opposition to Romney is, and always has been, based on his extremely liberal record, in words and deeds.
I find your assertions to be offensive in the extreme.
Good, I’m glad to see that you aren’t among the religious bigots that I described. Of course, I never said you were, did I? That you chose to apply the post personally was your decision; and if it had been written about you, then you would have had reason to be offended.
My purpose was to take the opportunity to illustrate my personal observations to another poster, not to attack you. When I attack you, I will leave no doubt as to the target.
My observations are based on the fact that many of the most intense detractors of the LDS Church on recent anti-Mormon threads - who continually proclaim their inability to ever vote for a Mormon - are also found on Romney threads vociferously blasting him on specious grounds.
That correlation isn’t about religion. It’s about bigotry. Is it uniformly applicable? No. But there are six to eight specific notable examples that I could list as likely candidates. You, evidently by your word, are not one of them.
I think some of the LDS folks are going looking for that fight, though. Why would they be surprised when they encounter it?
And, I think Mitt Romney, liberal, is leading many astray...leading good people to defend things they should not be defending.
Mitt Romney’s candidacy, IMO, is one of the worst things that could have come along for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“Mitt Romney’s candidacy, IMO, is one of the worst things that could have come along for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
You might be right; I know I’m quite nervous about it. I’d much rather that people come to know my Church through the friendship and example of its faithful members. I really don’t like what the MSM does with everything it touches.
This, too, shall pass.
Still, if Romney really is the best man for the job, then my discomfort should not be a factor in the decision; nor should any support I might extend to him because he belongs to the same religion as I. We’ll see eventually.
Pinochet, for all the good that he did, was still a dictator who had thousands of his political enemies killed. You aren’t seriously suggesting the CIA kidnap and kill people, are you?
Not glossing anything. Romney's position is entirely consistent wit and reflects the recent decision by the supreme court regarding the BSA, who he was associated with at the time.
It is also consistent with my position, that being the U.S. does not discriminate against any person because of their race, sex, or religion. Sexual orientation has now been added to that list, and there is not a friggin thing you or any other gay baiting SOB can do about it, so bag it and stop trying.. Time and time again, this issue has been brought to the public voting booth, voted on and the results have been that any law made that does not pass constitutional muster will not be tolerated by the courts. All this was done to influence elections, and it did not accomplish a damn thing but to create a stronger opposition. You would be required to chuck out the constitution in order to do the thing you want to do, and it's not gonna happen.
Romney recognizes what you apparently do not, and that is the fact that the constitution gives a private entity the freedoms to associate by their choice. Romney acknowledges this fact, and then says that as a general constitutional principle, the law cannot discriminate. Federal and State laws that do, are deemed unconstitutional, yet private entities not affected by federal jurisdiction as a condition of receipt of taxpayer funds or other regulatory bodies can restrict membership, as does your church, assuming you attend.
He was only trying to separate the government from the private entity, and as he was representing both, he gave both opinions.
He has never advocated a position that is inconsistent with the constitution, or supports rights for gays that exceed those of others. He supports a Marriage amendment, wholeheartedly and without reservation, but advocates a civil union for those who wish some sort of sanctioning, as do I! (because it is a logical solution)
You are mixing the two aspects intentionally, so that you can create the straw man that you require. A phony argument for you salacious attacks.
You have nothing more than a fist full of straw, and it is a very tedious task to maintain any sort of exchange with straw-man arguments, so I won't pursue this any further as it is a total and complete waste of my time. And I don't waste time......
Last time I checked, ENDA, which Romney has firmly supported, has not passed.
But I'm sure Hillary, Dirty Harry, and Nancy Pelosi will be happy to hear they have your support.
ENDA came up again on April 24. It was reintroduced by your good buddy Barney Frank.
It ain’t gonna pass. Too bad. No special rights for gays. Awwww...
I am speaking to recent supportive moves by the courts to include orientation subsection in the sexual category or the discrimination law.
Nothing less...nothing more...and it’s a fact with five supporting justices in most cases. Not to mention the federal district courts.
It is how they have chosen to view the issue as a direct result of idiotic challenges made by certain groups. It is a pushback against further litigation, and the harder you push them, the harder they will push back.
No, the Frank legislation will never see the light of day, and it should not be necessary anyway. The courts are dealing with this, in the same way they dealt with the private right of association and the BSA.
They have made a few mistakes as with the Texas case, but since congress cannot or will not ammend, the court has to make law. Then you attack them for doing so, when the real culprit is congress.
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.