The sheriff’s remark was a cheap shot meant to humiliate Mitt who has already apologized.
Did it hurt much, twisting yourself into a
To convince yourself Mitt's poor performance wasn't his fault?
Posted on 09/06/2007 6:01:57 AM PDT by Reaganesque
Riehl World View's Dan Riehl: "Based solely on my viewing the flow of the numbers from start to finish - on average, I honestly believe Romney resonated most strongly with the most people, conservative and moderate, in terms of the over all debate." (Dan Riehl, Riehl World View, http://www.riehlworldview.com/, 9/5/07)
Conservative Blogger's William Smith: "Mitt gives a great answer with regard to the responsibility of city government and state government." (William Smith, Conservative Blogger, http://www.conservativeblogger.com/, 9/5/07)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: Romney "[s]ays we have to have concern for the mother and change hearts and minds. Very nicely done." (Jennifer Rubin, The American Spectator, AmSpec Blog, http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp#7970, 9/5/07)
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "The focus on Romney and Giuliani reinforced the notion that the race right now is between those two men with former Sen. Fred Thompson who did not attend the debate as a potential wildcard." (Chris Cillizza, "GOP Debate Wrapup: Frontrunners Under Fire," The Washington Post's The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com, Posted 9/5/07)
Heading Right's Macranger: "Romney immediately scored with his point about de facto amnesty, and he talks about shutting down the 'magnets'. Romney's doing great so far..." (Macranger, Heading Right, Heading Right Blog, http://headingright.com/page/2/, 9/5/07)
The Washington Post's Eric Pianin: "Romney's response drew loud cheers; Giuliani's polite cheers. It speaks to the difficulty of any candidate who has something less than a black and white position when it comes to immigration." (Eric Pianin and Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post The Fix Blog, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/, Posted 9/5/07)
- Pianin: "Romney is working hard to make sure viewers know that he and Giuliani differ when it comes to immigration, seemingly slipping in the fact that New York was a 'sanctuary' city at every turn." (Eric Pianin and Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post The Fix Blog, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/, Posted 9/5/07)
National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "That was a serious answer from Romney [regarding intelligence and the War on Terror]. It channelled [sic] his own decision to refuse protection for an Iranian tyrant - one of those who is against us - while governor of Massachusetts. Going into mosques if they preach terror is a reasonable and necessary position. And one that someone who gets the stakes would espouse." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "Going Into Mosques," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, 9/5/07)
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Otherwise, Romney, being very familiar with New Hampshire's inner maw, had well-thought out answers for every other question, even as three of the first four turned, in some measure, on whether he flip-flopped." (Marc Ambinder, "And The Winners Are......," The Atlantic Blog, http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com, Posted 9/5/07)
National Review's Kate O'Beirne: "Romney's '462 events' In Iowa and New Hampshire alone also effective." (Kate O'Beirne, "Ready For The Questions," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 9/5/07)
Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham: "Mitt has a good line about his 'right to be kept alive' with respect to the government's response to terror." (Mary Katherine Ham, Townhall, Townhall blog, http://www.townhall.com/blog/MaryKatharineHam, 9/5/07)
Heading Right's JASmius: "So far, I think Romney gave the best answer [on immigration and sanctuary cities]." (JASmius, Heading Right, Heading Right Blog, http://headingright.com/page/2/, 9/5/07)
Bttt!
Yep. For someone who has no shot at winning, he sure draws a crowd.
Regarding the are Mormons Christian thing, it reminds me of the gay marriage debate.
Christian society has defined Christianity for a long, long time. Marriage has been defined for a long, long time. Different people have decided to stretch the meaning of both, IMO, to suit their ideological perspective.
Catholics do not recognize Mormon baptism. That is fundamental. You can call 2,000 years of theology of the Catholic Church ignorant if you want to, but it's foolish, and you're just starting a religious flame war, when you've got the liabilities of Joseph Smith, the angel Moroni, spirit children, and an eternal future as Gods on your own planet. Not a wise thing to do, IMO.
Maybe we should leave the definition of Christianity to Christ? Just a thought.
You might find this interesting and enlightening:
Title: A Mormon President?
Author: Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3594
The author attempts in this article to explain what effects the LDS faith may have on a Mormon president. She does so in a way targeted toward mainstream Christians, and does so in an admirably fair fashion.
One problem addressed in this article is that many mainstream Christians have a tough time figuring out just what makes us Mormons tick. My sense is that you are in that group. I get this from your statement: “...a “moderate” Mormon who has paid lip service (if any) to Mormon teaching in the past.” The point I’m trying to make to you by referring you to this article is that it is not religiously inconsistent for a Mormon voter to support a Mormon politician who doesn’t toe the line on everything the LDS Church ever says.
For the record, Romney is a model member of the LDS Church. Political positions have nothing to do with that. That may seem confusing to some, but the article does a fine job of explaining it.
I’ve also pinged a few acquaintances who might be interested in the author’s take.
*
~”Catholics do not recognize Mormon baptism. That is fundamental. You can call 2,000 years of theology of the Catholic Church ignorant if you want to...”~
I don’t want to. Mormons don’t recognize Catholic baptism, either. I’ve never seen an LDS FReeper, though, post anything designed to tear down any other denomination of Christianity, while on the other hand there are some on FR that spend their days attacking our faith (none of them Catholic, as far as I am aware). That the Catholic Church thinks it is right bothers us not at all - we make the same claim. The difference is, when we make the claim, some mainstream Christians decide to take offense. They don’t seem to like that kind of moral absolutism and confidence; their insecurity, in many cases, in their own faith puts them on the defensive.
But most members of the Catholic Church, I think, would consider Mormons fellow Christians. Those who would not are, indeed, ignorant. We are Christians because we follow Jesus Christ. I do believe this is the original, and correct, definition. If any faith, Catholic or otherwise, calls that definition a revision, then I don’t care to live by theirs, for Jesus Christ, and not the centuries-evolved philosophies of men, is the foundation of my faith.
~”...when you’ve got the liabilities of...”~
Nothing you listed is a liability. The fact that it differs from your beliefs does not make it undesirable. Or wrong. Oh, and the your own planet bit? You infinitely underestimate human potential.
One point I forgot to include:
~”These people refuse to admit the truth of direct quotes, even ones with video evidence, even signed statements by Romney.”~
I have been watching this debate for months now. In the vast majority of cases, the attacks on Romney - even the direct quotes, video evidence, and signed statements that you cite - are taken out of context and are easily understood once the circumstances are studied.
One example that comes to mind is the quote that Romney detractors like to use to bolster their claims of his support for gay marriage, where he spoke to the gay woman about raising children being the American way.
Romney’s detractors often twist this quote to portray Romney as indicating to this woman that he supports gay marriage - when he clearly stated in the previous sentence that he did not. Yet when this inconsistency is pointed out to them, they shrug it off. “Words mean things,” they say. Well, my response to that argument is, “So do paragraphs.”
Fully 90% of the common criticisms of Romney fall into this category. And yet their adherents become frustrated because the Romney supporters go out and learn the full story, then stick by their candidate. They chalk it up to some sort of refusal to admit the truth, blindness, or fanaticism.
Now, is Romney a perfect candidate? No. I do have some concerns, and I’m keeping a close eye on Thompson. But neither does Romney resemble the caricature that is drawn of him by his detractors.
If Romney has one Achilles’ heel, it is that it takes this kind of mental exertion to fully comprehend where he’s coming from. That is not something at which the electorate excels. They’re much more susceptible to the sound bites employed to unjustly trash him.
I agree. Plus, it highlights one of the big problems with McCain. He thinks he knows it all and may not wait for the recommendations of the commanders on the ground. General McCain always knows best. Romney was pragmatic and understands that he should wait and get the complete story from the military commanders in the field and then make decisions based on full and complete information.
Islam will accept eternal warfare. That is the problem.
So you're saying Catholic teaching is ignorant.
Or those who follow Catholic teaching are ignorant.
I'm fine with you thinking that -- I'm big on people honestly disagreeing -- but I will say again that when you call 2,000 years of Christian tradition, theologians, and saints ignorant, and set them up against some guy from upstate NY, it reflects poorly on you.
You are well aware of the postings seeking to establish the notion that Christianity is in apostasy without Mormonism and that the early Church composed creeds and doctrines authored by men, not the Holy Spirit thus Christianity had to be restored in Joe Smith because ALL of Christian faith was lacking authority. That is more than just a casual effort to denigrate Orthodoxy, it is the typical Mormonism campaign to sow doubt and try to plant the seeds of the Mormonism cultish beliefs in the plowed ground. How many times have you, Delphi User, sevenbak, and Rameumptom posted the quotes from early Church Fathers or claimed that Constantine forced the writing of creeds establishment of Orthodoxy? How many times have you apologists claimed that Mormonism is 'restored Christianity, that baptism after the last Apostle died lack the authority to 'complete salvation'?
You bold liar you. How often will you Mormonism apologists try to inveigle this great lie at FR? Your entire religion is founded on the premise that Christianity is in apostasy, failed, lost, and only the smithism cult can restore the salvation Jesus asserted even the gates of Hell would not prevail against.
--------------
That was bad, but to me Huckabee said something much less defensible, and I'm surprised no one caught it.
He agreed with one of the questioners (Wallace, I believe) that opposition to amnesty for illegals was motivated by racism.
I'm an 11th Commandment guy (except for Ron Paul, who I don't really consider Republican), but Huckster came close to losing me with that one.
Hank
I have been contemplating my post to you ever since I sent it for posting. I am unsettled when I post something so strongly worded. But in this case, upon reflection, I think it appropriate because you know what you posted was false and was stated so matter-of-factly, as if you could post such a lie in support of Mormonism and fellow apologists for Mormonism and it would slide right by the average reader, impugning those opposed to Mormonism while draping false garments upon you Mormonism proselytizers. I am now more disturbed that you would assert such a lie so boldly than I am concerned over my strong rebuke. I wonder, do you even realize you posted that lie so casually? Are you actually that blind or just that bold, to lie for your religion?
I think this non-issue has already atrophied unless of course someone wants to “bring it up” again. ;-)
How large is the Mitt ping list?
Rmney has higher negatives than Hillary. Of course he will draw a crowd when his 47% of people OPPOSE him.
These 47% are not people who are squishy and don’t care. They are people like me that will do whatever it takes to truthfully bring him down. Makes for some rousing discussions.
Wise, indeed, if you're a political Machiavellian as Romney "apparently" is...what he was doing is digging a backdoor so he can blast the "coach" (Bush) again for last year's Democratic takeover when the "team" lost, just in case, the MSM sways the public in believing the holes in the general's report. The surge is working fine, thank you, and it will bring about eventual victory that is, unless, someone with the political weakness to stay the course gets in office (i.e. Paul, O'bama, Hillary, Dodd, Biden, Edwards ... AND you know who).
The sheriff’s remark was a cheap shot meant to humiliate Mitt who has already apologized.
Did it hurt much, twisting yourself into a
To convince yourself Mitt's poor performance wasn't his fault?
Thanks for your post. I have found Catholics far more tolerant of Mormons than the protestants (but I have lots of Protestant friends too) and yet the Catholics feel their church is the “true” one. As you say, that bothers me not at all. In fact, I like Catholics so much that I have a daughter in one of their great high schools. While I differ with them theologically, they are great people and friends. It was “born again” school that would not accept my daughter because she was a Mormon. I have lots of my daughter’s Catholic friends over to the house and they are great people.
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.