Mitt Romney having ‘weird Mormon’ problem

Examiner.com ^ | June 16, 2011 | D.K. Jamaal

[gunsmithkat]

RomneyCare, Ethanol and AGW should be enough to doom his candidacy.

[kevkrom]

Romney doesn’t have a “weird Mormon” problem, he has a “weird Romney” problem.

Nor is it “clean living” that makes him so awkward. It’s a life ensconced among the self-styled “elite” that makes him absolutely unable to empathize with the “common man”, no matter hard he tries to force the issue. It comes across as the pandering that it is.

[Colofornian]

...if clean living is “akward” then let’s have more akwardness in our politicians.

Sorry, but Mitt's hardly an icon for clean living.

Let me give you an analogy.

The motel industry was, in part, created by the Route 66 drive from Chicago to LA in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s.

Imagine you're around then & you have an acquaintance whose taken over a successful established Route 66 motel in the late 50s -- a motel in a sparsely populated county with no law enforcement. This guy's intrigued by new porn venues on the market like Hefner's Playboy and has both weary travelers & truckdrivers in mind for targeting them for a full onslaught of viewing home-made porn...both published stuff & small film rooms devoted to watching it.

So he taps into a regional pimp to film/shoot his prostitutes having sex and he makes it available to his customers.

It becomes so successful of an addition to his business, that he doesn't mind the "porn motel mogul" title & starts bringing on Board members in the hopes of expanding the motel into a chain that he would like to take public in 15-20 years.

Now what if I told you one of those board members was Mitt Romney?

Now Romney hasn't been a board member of a mere motel or motel chain, but the Marriott Hotel chain. He's been paid $25,000 a year for that role -- yes, a mere pittance on his millions -- but still raking in a % of Marriott's hotel customers who pay in-effect prostitutes for voyeur rights to view it...no different than somebody shooting/filming prostitutes having sex.

There's no way around it: Any hotel or motel in bed with the porn industry is the porn industry!

Even the Mormon church owned Deseret News critiqued Mitt's involvement with Marriott over the porn connection in a July 2007 editorial: The nasty taint of porn after the DesNews ran this AP article on the flak Romney was taking: Mitt draws flak over Marriott porn: Critics say he should have opposed it while on board

Clean living? (Yeah, I'm sure he tithed on his porn profits to the Mormon church)

[9YearLurker]

It’s about time you retired that outlier, out-of-date poll.

[culpeper]

The media will skewer Romney and Huntsman if they are nominated, thats why they are not skewering them now. They will be all over Huntsmans relationship with China also.

[9YearLurker]

“He notes the lack of “guy waitresses” at a diner and says of the long skirts worn by the middle-aged wait staff: “Oh, this is the Hooters equivalent.””

The dude’s lucky he doesn’t have any sexual harassment lawsuits going.

[Da Coyote]

Perhaps his awkwardness during casual moments is due to the fact that - as a RINO - he has to devote almost entirely as much mental bandwidth into lying as do liberals.

I have many Mormon friends, and all have social, academic and work credentials that far outdo those of this creepy little politician.

When he’s giving a speech, he simply goes into a lying, thieving, corrupt, son of a ****** liberal mode where can say anything to further his creepy little butt.

Such people are scum, and should be treated as such.

[Psalm 144]

“And this doesn’t even mention that awkward joke attempt during a photo-op with servers at a New Hampshire restaurant where he feigned being goosed from behind.

Awkward.”

Not just awkward. Kinked and narcissistic too. Of course as with many of these vile people in this vile “profession”, the narcissism emanates like a stench. But in the period as Anthony Weiner perversions 24/7, Romney’s display of a spanking fantasy or whatever indicates some disturbing fracture lines underneath all that lacquer. It also shows how he will use those around him, as mere props without the slightest regard to their own character or dignity.

[WoofDog123]

I hadn’t seen that palin no-vote number, interesting. Years of constant anti-palin press has definitely had the desired effect, as there are folks who have not heard a good word about her in years and will never vote for her based on that.

[Psalm 144]

“Clean living” doesn’t encompass making a public scene pretending that a stranger is playing with their butt. We should all be glad for the plastic veneer around this poseur. This will be an escalating creep show on policy, personality and power abuse.

[capecodder]

ANYONE but Obama. (ABO)

When McCain ran, Obama had no record (of any kind). He has since created one he can’t run from.

For many people, it will be ABO.

[ansel12]

Nice of you to try and boost Romney against Palin with an old poll that has Huckabee and Trump in it.

[greyfoxx39]

Oh, and then there was this one: He notes the lack of "guy waitresses" at a diner and says of the long skirts worn by the middle-aged wait staff: "Oh, this is the Hooters equivalent."

Or....the hint of superiority breaking through..."I'm so clean-living I've never darkened the door of a Hooter's restaurant....but I've heard of them...I'm just one of the guys, ya know!"

Reminds me of the comment he made about his five sons "serving the country" by working on his campaign.

[Polybius]

Nice of you to try and boost Romney against Palin with an old poll that has Huckabee and Trump in it.

"Boost Romney"?

If you go back and research my posts from the 2008 election, you will see that I took a shot at the abortionist Romney every chance I got. You will see that I repeatedly posted the videos of his debate with Ted Kennedy when Romney was for abortion before he was against it.

As I have repeatedly said before:

Bill Clinton did not announce his first winning candidacy until October of the year before the election.

The GOP has until around October of 2011 to attract a strong conservative candidate whose poll numbers are not lower than whale scat at the bottom of the ocean and who can actually defeat Obama.

If not, we will have either RINO Romney or Marxist Obama as the President for the next four years.

Are you truly so blind that you do not see any alternative besides RINO Romney and "General Election Suicide by Palin"?

Are you truly so blind that you do not see any alternative besides RINO Romney and absolutely GUARANTEEING the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama?

Should I accuse you of "boosting Obama" by wanting a candidate that will absolutely guarantee Obama's reelection because 65% of all voters have stated that they will "definitely NOT" vote for her?

That is ALL voters. That is in the GENERAL election. In the GENERAL election, there will only be ONE Republican. Not three. Only ONE.

Are we clear on how GENERAL elections work?

SIXTY FIVE PERCENT OF ALL VOTERS STATE THAT THEY WILL DEFINITELY NOT --- REPEAT --- DEFINITELY NOT VOTE FOR SARAH PALIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

Let that sink into your brain.

SIXTY FIVE PERCENT OF ALL VOTERS STATE THAT THEY WILL DEFINITELY NOT --- REPEAT --- DEFINITELY NOT VOTE FOR SARAH PALIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

Again:

SIXTY FIVE PERCENT OF ALL VOTERS STATE THAT THEY WILL DEFINITELY NOT --- REPEAT --- DEFINITELY NOT VOTE FOR SARAH PALIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

If you have a more recent poll that shows just how low Palin's support is among ALL voters, FreepMail it to me and I will gladly use that poll in the future.

Trump and Huckabee dropped out of the race ... when?

Huckabee dropped out on May 14, 2011.

Trump dropped out on May 16, 2011.

Is that truly your logic? Is that really the best answer you have to poll after poll after poll after poll that shows that the percentage of voters that want nothing to do with Palin in the GENERAL election is WAAAAY over the 50% mark?

"If a poll is more than 4 weeks old, I will stick my head in the sand, like an ostrich, and pretend that the Real World does not exist."

[ansel12]

The way that you spam Romney and Palin threads with your nonsense and that out dated Huckabee Trump poll proves my point.

[Colofornian]

SIXTY FIVE PERCENT OF ALL VOTERS STATE THAT THEY WILL DEFINITELY NOT --- REPEAT --- DEFINITELY NOT VOTE FOR SARAH PALIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Let that sink into your brain.

If we go by the %s of the last two POTUS elections, anywhere from just over 1 in 5 of those polled -- to as many as 3 in 7 -- won't vote! And that's just if we assume the averages will stay the same. (That the anti-Palin voters would stay home in the same ratio as other anti-XYZ voters)

The poll was of registered voters. But there's a difference 'tween registered voters and likely voters.

We know that about 70% of registered voters in '04 voted. That meant 30% of them stayed home. More than 20% stayed home in '08. Over 36 million REGISTERED voters stayed home!