holey underwear
From the article:
This time around, the Romney campaign’s decision to quietly set aside the hopes of winning the support of evangelical Christians is likely to have significant strategy impacts not only in Iowa but also in the South. For now, the Romney campaign seems focused on making endorsements—now numbering 100 or more—in key 2010 races, including successful GOP gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley in South Carolina.
This strategy shift reflects a refinement of the Romney 2008 campaign’s tactic of downplaying the candidate’s faith entirely as well as a renewed focus (taking a page from his friend California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s playbook) on emphasizing Romney’s can-do know-how as a successful businessman. Romney’s December 2007 George Bush Presidential Library address—billed by his campaign as a major statement on faith and public life—tellingly skirted the hot topic of his Mormonism almost completely. His recent book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness (2010) offers only a few scant mentions of the candidate’s deep Mormon roots and a simple two-page statement on the importance of “Belief and Purpose” in public life.
Mitt Romney.. just go away, never to be heard from again.
If Romney is selected, it is a sure win for Obama.
1. Romney belongs to a false religion
2. 15-24% of voters consistently say they will not vote for someone in that religion
3. It is probably a greater percentage of Republican voters
4. Romney laid the groundwork to bankrupt MA with RomneyCare (see today’s WSJ article)
5. Romney is a RINO and will lose Conservatives, with the exception of Utah, which makes you wonder if they are conservatives...
6. Romney was dishonest when allowing his staff to pose as policeman with fake badges
It would be a stupid move to nominate him.
He's a non-starter.
Why are we still talking about this jerk?
That’s too large a block to surrender. He only stands a chance if there’s no candidate that appeals to the socons or that vote is split in several directions.
If it’s between Mitt and Sarah, Mitt gets smoked.
This article is hogwash.
Nana to the editing rescue... Word from inside the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign team is that Romney will abandon his 2008 strategy of seeking to win over social conservatives—evangelical or born-again Christians—for whom his liberalism is a major deterrent.
holey underwear
“Hey, and if that doesn’t work, let me tell you another one . . .”
Stupid strategy.
If the story is true, Romney doesn’t seem to have too much sense.
How can he hope to win without the support of so many millions of Americans?
Stupid strategy.
If the story is true, Romney doesn’t seem to have too much sense.
How can he hope to win without the support of so many millions of Americans?
The premise of this article is just plain off the mark and stupid.
If this is Romney’s Craptastic PR company leading him to believe his religion had anything substantive to do with his failure to ascend to the presidency, then he isn’t as smart as I thought.
He was a lackluster go along to get along, spineless, air sucking lizard, who agreed with everyone in the debates.
He just didn’t have a soul or spirit and frankly, neither did anyone of the other candidates. No ideas, No strategies to lead, no message invoking the spirit of America.
Instead he ceded ground and let an apologist and globull bootlicker sell his version of being an international dressmaker who will bow and curtsy to everyone who has been so called “unfairly” treated and who followed through on his promise to stand with the moslem and islam.
Romney had only significant speech, which was full of fire and very inspiring.
Unfortunately, you shouldn’t let your concession speech be your salutation and salvo, at the same time.
His religion has absolutely nothing to do with voters decisions.
How would he square a supposed election of a Hussein, who we all suspect is a moslem or at the least a sympathizer?
And we wouldn’t elect a Mormon? Someone who is at least an American?
Lame excuse.
Q: I read recently that the Catholic Church had rejected Mormon baptism, since their view of Christ and the Trinity is so unusual. But I have to ask: Are Mormons considered separated brothers and sisters? While their views are strange to say the least, they are still separated, and we should reach out to them. If we view them as something other than separated, doesn't that exclude ecumenism? I know that many view them as a cult, but aren't cult members separated as well?
A: The reason Mormons are not considered separated brethren is not because they aren't "separated" from the Church-they are-but they aren't "brethren" in the sense required.
The phrase separated brethren refers to those who, though separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, have been justified through baptism and are thus brethren in Christ. The Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) of Vatican II teaches that "all who have been justified by faith in baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."
Because Mormonism is polytheistic and rejects the Trinity, Mormon baptism is not valid, and Mormons are not considered separated brethren. For the same reason, outreach to them, while certainly a good thing, is not ecumenism, though it can include dialogue and social cooperation as well as efforts to evangelize them.
Perhaps this is his attempt to sneak away from the pretense of being conservative. If he claims that the Christians are persecuting him, he might become the ‘hold your nose’ candidate of the Democrats who want to punish their leaders for skittle rationing but wouldn’t want to vote for a true conservative. If Romney claims he’s being abused by evangelical Christians, the left may just try to embrace him to ‘teach’ their ‘leaders’ a lesson.
The internet age has shed light on mormonism. The "general public" has a much better understanding of the cult of mormonism because of it.
I have two equally valid reasons to not vote for Romney, his liberalism and his cultism.
This may be true but the article says he lost to Huckabee by 30 pts in IA? He lost 34-25, or 9 pts.
And “Religion Dispatches” blog is an objective informed source on the inner workings and strategies of the Romney campaign ?
I’m skeptical about the article’s bona fides, but it’s not unreasonable to write off the general bigot vote. Romney won’t get them regardless of the good or bad of his policies. That’s clear enough by now.
That’s not necessarily a net loss. It’s like Stormfront endorsing a candidate, the stink of those sorts drives off the larger saner side of the electorate.