Presidential ================= Post-menopausal.
Posted on 06/06/2007 10:26:36 AM PDT by Swordfished
On FOX News, pollster Luntz declares Romney the winner and John McCain the loser.
Romney is 'off the charts' in positive reaction to his answer on faith Mormon faith. Good comments by typical voters. Luntz uses an interesting method that allows tracking of the reactions to the candidates in real time.
Do you think Newt will enter the race once Fred does?
I can understand that.
This election I am taking a different tactic. I am looking more at the character of the candidates: who they are and what they have achieved. That seems a better predictor.
And that's fine. But if he was once "pro-choice" on abortion, then that shows a track record of a character flaw. After all, if you can't defend the least of these, how are you going to treat any other oppressed group?
As for a contemporary eval of his character, I would say that the degree to which a person is vulnerable to deception in what he/she would deem the most important area of his/her life--THAT is a character flaw. (How is someone who can't even define historic Christianity going to instill confidence about defining other world religions like Islam?)
As for what he's achieved, he'd probably tell you whatever it is, it's nothing compared to what he wants to accomplish in the future: First in the White House, then in his own world as a god (since LDS define "exaltation" and the accompanying "exaltation" as having your own world as a god, making spirit babies with mom-god).
Now just think about the Democrats & Democratic journalists, waiting back, who will bring this issue up day after day if Mitt wins the primaries: "Mitt Romney, the only potential future god, is making a run for an office that won't compare to his celestial throne to come at a later point in his 'career'..."
I totally agree - CNN is VERY afraid of Romney, and many people in this forum totally underestimate him - he is NOT an empty suit.
As far as character flaws, we've all got them; you, me and everyone else reading the forum. The challenge is to overcome and grow spiritually. I don't know why Romney was pro-choice; whether it was a misguided, personal belief, politically expedient for that particular population or another reason. It would be nice to know why he changed and perhaps he should address it. It was already brought up tonight on Fox and I'm sure he'll have to provide an answer soon enough. The good sign is that he flipped in the right direction. My concern is towards politicians who say one thing before the election then their true liberal colors emerge in office. THAT makes me mad. I can deal with sinners (we all are) but I have no respect for liars.
How is someone who can't even define historic Christianity going to instill confidence about defining other world religions like Islam?)
I think he has a pretty good understanding of Islam. It's not hard to figure out that a certain group of people want you dead. As far as Christianity, I have a theory. When you grow up with a certain mindset, education and environment it becomes normal. That's your frame of reference. Using myself as an example, I'm Catholic and have been all my life. I never fully appreciated until recently the difficulty new converts (especially from Protestantism) have with some of our beliefs. It's perfectly normal to me, but until I heard the stories I never understood. Back to Romney, Mormonism is all he knows. If he was brought up to believe it was truth he's probably never questioned it. Some of the ideas are outrageous to non-Mormons but normal to them. Also, the average person in any religion is not as motivated as most of us on FR. A lot of people live their religion out of habit, familiarity or culture and never think twice. Those of us who debate here are the exception rather than the rule (imo).
Now just think about the Democrats & Democratic journalists, waiting back, who will bring this issue up day after day if Mitt wins the primaries
It will be interesting I admit. So far he looks pretty good in thinking on his feet so I will be interested in how he handles it. As long as Romney lives by his moral code we will be okay. His theological beliefs affect his soul and that of his family. I don't see how it hurts us. We've had Presidents of all kinds- Unitarian, Deists, various Protestants, one Catholic (for whom I probably wouldn't have voted) and agnostics or atheists I'm sure. If I made theological agreement a condition I'd never vote (at least not for a winning candidate). The line for me is those who practice a religion which teaches destruction, like Obama's Muslim background and Hillary the communist witch (I mean that literally, Methodism is just a cover.)
Fox news tonight selectively picked one thing to discuss about Romney and the debate - his abortion switch. Just noted it, nothing else. I thought that was very odd. If he’s not a threat, why bother? The way they discussed the candidates made it seem like they had an agenda to influence public opinion.
One reason is Romney can’t be painted as a hard right conservative. He can pick up a lot of moderates, independents and Reagan Democrats. So far he has no identified skeletons in his closet. If he comes out with strong ideas on so called Dem issues like healthcare, Social Security and the environment they are in trouble.
Who gives a crap? None of the so called “Top Three” are worth voting for anyway. I’m for Fred. At least for now.
I would strongly suggest that you use your omniscient ability to peer into men's souls and not vote for any flawed candidate.
BTW... Hope you have fun sitting at home eating pretzels on election day!
Agreed, as someone who likes the field as a whole (I dont think its weak at all), I can see Giuliani doing very well in a debate or as a contrast to Thompson. Giuliani has a lot of intellectual horsepower, as does Mitt. I see Thompson as more VP material.
Hold it. Let me get this straight: Let's say I had the audacity to claim "omniscience." Apparently that's bothersome to you. But somebody like Mitt (& every other temple Mormon)...folks who think they either are gods or are becoming gods...attributes such as omnipotence, glory, complete righteousness, complete holiness, perfect love, omnipresence, omniscience, & every other superlative we can think of...that doesn't bother you?
So that quality (in abundance) is "OK" in a candidate you vote for, but not even a sliver is "OK" in a fellow FREEPER?
As for character flaws, yup, all candidates have them. It's just not every character flaw results in the continued sanctioned slaughter of 4,000 pre-born babies a day.
Hope you have fun sitting at home eating pretzels on election day!
What? Nothing to wash it down with?
Exactly. His skeleton is in plain sight. It's the elephant in the room. He may be the first American god-president.
Presidential ================= Post-menopausal.
I will be drinking a chilled glass of sauvignon blanc with my pretzels after I vote for the REPUB nominee against Hillary/Obama... Not sure who I'll vote for in the primaries yet.
"He may be the first American god-president."
No... Have to say that Slick Willie wears that title with a bunch of "our liberal brothers and sisters"... and probably in his own mind as well.
Newt is hanging around in case nobody catches fire. Right now I'll bet he is just waiting, watching and keeping the ball in the air.
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.