Posted on 06/05/2005 9:55:00 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
Because of the "Mormon Issue" Romney will never get his parties nomination in 2008. Just the sample of anti-Mormon sentiment shown in this thread should be enough to let any demographically minded analyst see that he cannot win the Southern (evangelical)primaries. Romney could be president but only after 8 years of Vice Presidency immunizes him from the anti-Mormon whisper campaign.
As for the role of religious bigotry in politics- I think too many people point to Lieberman's candidacy as a sign that minority religion does not hurt you any more. But ask yourselves, in the state of Florida in 2000 were there 200 Democrat voters who could not bring themselves to vote for a Jewish candidate? Considering how strong anti-Semitic though is in some African American and Arab American communities that otherwise would have supported Gore can we be sure that Lieberman did not cost Gore Florida? Some of those same evangelicals who decry the evils of Mormons also still refer to Catholics as "Papists" We live in a tolerant country where a Mormon can be governor of Michigan or Massachusetts, and a Jew can be governor of Utah, but that does not mean that close races are not still swayed by bigotry.
Interestingly, Jeff is answering his own question here. Who does he think reads TWS or NR?
I do not know. I think he can knock off McCain in NH and Michign and clear the way for Allen and in return become VP. However I'm growing more worried as someone who agress with about 75% of the "christin right" that it 100% their way or the highway. Listen Bush is not going to overturn abortion by the time his term is up and I doubt if a republican wins in 08 it will be in his first term. But they going to be able to do alot on the bugdet, taxes, War on Terror, ect.
You almost got it right. David had his way with Bathsheba, got her pregnant, tried to fool her husband, Uriah, but was unsuccessful. Since Plan A didn't work, he sent Uriah into the heat of battle and had this general retreat and leave Uriah fighting by himself. See: 2 Samuel 11:2-17:
"2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
"3 And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
"4 And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house.
"5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.
"6 And David sent to Joab, saying, Send me Uriah the Hittite. And Joab sent Uriah to David.
"7 And when Uriah was come unto him, David demanded of him how Joab did, and how the people did, and how the war prospered.
"8 And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess of meat from the king.
"9 But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, and went not down to his house.
"10 And when they had told David, saying, Uriah went not down unto his house, David said unto Uriah, Camest thou not from thy journey? why then didst thou not go down unto thine house?
"11 And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.
"12 And David said to Uriah, Tarry here to day also, and to morrow I will let thee depart. So Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day, and the morrow.
"13 And when David had called him, he did eat and drink before him; and he made him drunk: and at even he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house.
"14 And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah.
"15 And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.
"16 And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were.
"17 And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also."
Which just shows what a RINO you are. We already have plenty of politicians from Massachusetts who sold their souls to Satan over the abortion issue. Most of them are Democrats. And the Dems are more than welcome to the rest of them.
Well, good, you go vote for the RINOs then. As for me and my kind, we'll stay home, thank you.
Also, though he's nominally opposed to same-sex marriage, he's in favor of "civil unions", which for amounts to the same thing for all intents and purposes, and which in fact will just be a gateway to the exact same thing formally.
He went on national cable TV (the O'Reilly Factor) and said he was opposed to civil unions. But since the proposed Massachusetts Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman, he hopes it will pass even though it creates civil unions.
Uttering the phrase "woman's right to choose" was his open sesame to the governorship. Hey, Roe v. Wade created just that. It is clearly an extra-Constitutional "right" created by judicial activism but adherence to the rule of law right now requires respecting it. You'd have to virtually be a revolutionary as things stand to deny it. President Mitt Romney would nominate conservative judges. Take that to the bank.
OK, I checked and you're right, his officially stated position is that he's opposed to "civil unions", but he's also said that he supports "some" same-sex "partner benefits". It all looks like semantic dancing to me.
Uttering the phrase "woman's right to choose" was his open sesame to the governorship.
I don't buy it. Even normal voters who are for abortion don't go around talking like that. That is purely a buzzphrase used by Planned Parenthood and organizations of their ilk (and the politicians who do their bidding). If he had simply said that he wouldn't attempt to restrict abortion for women, no one would have known the difference. Every time an alleged conservative uses that phrase, he scores a big propaganda victory for the abortion industry.
I feel strongly that it isn't "dancing." Civil unions would be defined as having exactly the same status, legal obligations, and benefits as marriage. Legally, the two "institutions" will have no independent existence - the people will not be able to change one without changing the other. That's profound, and a profoundly bad idea.
The most important thing about domestic partnerships, whatever they may be, is that they won't be that.
DPs would make it easier to name a partner as next-of-kin, things like that. They would provide a framework for some benefits, but not defined to be the same as marriage benefits.
In my opinion, legal partnerships like that would be fine and I don't see why such a thing must encode a sexual relationship at all; it could be two spinster sisters, but unfortunately, that's not what's blowin' in the political wind. President Bush has spoken favorably about same-sex DPs (at variance with the party platform.)
Uttering the phrase "woman's right to choose" was his open sesame to the governorship. -NutCrackerBoy
I don't buy it. Even normal voters who are for abortion don't go around talking like that. That is purely a buzzphrase used by Planned Parenthood and organizations of their ilk.
I agree with you that "a woman's right to choose" is an activist's phrase. Clearly, Romney was genuflecting to a political interest. I assure you, liberal voters in Massachusetts (who sometimes vote for Republican governors, or at least don't try very hard to defeat them) may not talk that way, but they do not hear it as weird coming from a politician. In essence, it was a dodge. It worked. He won't pay a significant price for it, in my opinion, in his standing with liberals OR conservatives.
Uttering the phrase "woman's right to choose" was his open sesame to the governorship. Hey, Roe v. Wade created just that. It is clearly an extra-Constitutional "right" created by judicial activism but adherence to the rule of law right now requires respecting it. You'd have to virtually be a revolutionary as things stand to deny it. President Mitt Romney would nominate conservative judges. Take that to the bank.
:thumbs up:
Thanks, said it better then I could.
How would that be considered an asset?
(Perplexed Smiley.)
It would have been better if it had been this George Romney.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1840146710/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-0065608-8373517#reader-link
The late governor didn't leave much of a legacy, if an 18th century British painter tops him when you do a Google search.
:7)
Seriously, I can't imagine his surname being a bonus in the upcoming Republican presidential primary sweepstakes.
For the older voters that do remember his father, it's more than likely that they recall his bizarre, flailing attempt to dethrone Richard Nixon as the presumptive GOP nominee-including his odd explanation for changing his position on American involvement in Vietnam-not any accomplishments he may have achieved during his tenure as governor of Michigan.
Then why would Romney be in favor of an amendment that prohibits same-sex "marriage", but mandates same-sex "civil unions", if they're the exact same thing? Without the amendment, there's a chance that the SCJ might someday be induced to overturn its ruling (especially if the head Republican in the state would help things along - hint, hint). But once the amendment is passed, same-sex marriage (under the name of civil unions) would be formally set in the state constitution, unalterable by judges. That's progress?
Legally, the two "institutions" will have no independent existence - the people will not be able to change one without changing the other. That's profound, and a profoundly bad idea. The most important thing about domestic partnerships, whatever they may be, is that they won't be that.
They may not "be that", but they'll pave the way for it nonetheless. It's an inherently unsustainable situation. Once a person accepts the validity of it, then there will be little grounds for him to argue against the full transition to same-sex marriage. Ten years ago, who would have thought we'd even be at this point today?
I agree with you that "a woman's right to choose" is an activist's phrase. Clearly, Romney was genuflecting to a political interest. I assure you, liberal voters in Massachusetts (who sometimes vote for Republican governors, or at least don't try very hard to defeat them) may not talk that way, but they do not hear it as weird coming from a politician.
Whether they would hear it as weird is not the issue. The point is, he didn't have to say it that way in order to get elected. Make no mistake, he needlessly advanced the abortion industry's cause just by saying it.
Yesterday I was checking tvguideonline for movies but saw CSPAN had a new "Road to the WH" listed so I clicked to see what that was about and it listed Romney and HRC.
BTW, I proposed Romney as candidate a couple weeks ago before the current hoopla. I'm psychic! LOL
Milliken was worse than Granholm.
No gun grabbers. (Romney, Rudy, Pataki, McCain)
I find him very willing to be confrontational. But he does it in a charming and very funny way.
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.