Romney Surges in S.C., Florida

Dry Fly Politics ^ | 10/23/07 | Steve

[Reaganesque]

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007...8:57 am

Romney Surges in S.C., Florida

Jump to Comments

In vastly underreported election news, recent polls are showing a Romney surge in both South Carolina and Florida. Of course no one knows this because no one has mentioned it. We would all think that Romney was flopping around like a fish out of water in the Southern states according to some recent posts that have been written about each state. Of course, logic would tell us that Romney should not be doing well in either of these states: He is Mormon, Slick, and a NorEaster. Nevertheless, he is polling well and will likely be right in the thick of the races come January. Here are the recent polls:

South Carolina

Oct 02, Insider Advantage Poll: Thompson 21%, Romney and Giuliani 16%

Sep 26-29, ARG Poll: Romney 26%, Giuliani 23%, Thompson 10%

Sep 26-27, Rasmussen: Thompson 24%, Giuliani 20%, Romney 15%

Additionally, the Romney campaign performed an internal poll, here are the results:

Romney Internal Poll: Thompson: 24%, Romney 20%, Giuliani 15%

So, in South Carolina Romney is right in the thick of the fight. It appears that the recent condemnation of Giuliani by Christian Right leaders is having a detrimental effect and that the advertising that Romney has been airing over the last month is causing some movement. However, it should be noted that the same article that reported the Romney internal poll caveats the results by saying that this was before the Bob Jones endorsement. A separat poll says that 27% of South Carolinans are more likely to support Romney due to this, but 32% are less likely. It will be interesting to see what effect the evangelical endorsements will have.

In Florida, Romney also continues to surge, and Florida is arguably more important a victory for any of the candidates. Here are the recent polls:

Oct 1-8, Quinnipiac: Giuliani: 27%, Thompson 19%, Romney 17%

Oct. 2, Insider Advantage: Giuliani 29%, Thompson 19%, Romney 16%

Granted, these polls are nothing to get thrilled over as Giuliani has a sizeable lead. However, all previous polling had Romney hovering between 7% and 10% in Florida. So a 6-7 point jump in a month is significant and he is really the only one gaining steam in these states, whereas Giuliani and Thompson are plateauing.

It should also be mentioned that all the hubub about Huckabee or Thompson surging against Romney in Iowa should be somewhat muted by the most recent Iowa poll that gave Romney an impressive 14 point lead:

Oct 10-14, Strategic Vision Poll: Romney-27, Giuliani-13, Huckabee-12, Thompson-10.

I wonder if this will get the coverage that the poll placing Huckabee within 6 points will get. I doubt it.

All in all, while Romney has stalled in some places, so have all the candidates. The race is a real crap shoot, there is far from a difinitive front runner. However, it still looks to be a Giuliani-Romney finale.

[colorcountry]

It wasn’t my post that was removed. BTW thanks for the accusation.

[Hi Heels]

So, she has rights and I don't? I have no right to feel offended? Check her posting history. Months and months and months of anti-Mormon posts. Little else posted. That, my dear, is bigotry. Threats? What? Cut the drama. I didn't/wouldn't threaten anyone. You're like some kid in the playground pushing another yelling "hit me, hit me".

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has the right to spread religious bigotry. And flame away, boys! The history of the poster speaks for itself. And what's worse, she's not alone. That is particularly sad.

This country allows for religious freedom. That is the REASON America was founded. Pilgrims. Protestant. Remember? Hello?

Jews, Christians, Mormons, Catholics, whatever. This is no different than coming on this forum and insulting the Jewish religion. This is exactly what gives the liberals fodder to yell "Nazi" at us.

God forbid anyone came here and criticized the Christian faith. They'd have the lot of you at their door with pitchforks and torches. Just Like Jesus Would Have Done...RIGHT?/sarc.

[colorcountry]

It wasn’t even my post that was removed.

[restornu]

Well I have left the Presbyterian Church because I have found it not true and keep it in the family just as Joseph told his family!

So what!

I don’t make it a life mission to tear it down when I have something far better to replace it!

Must be what ever you or other folks have is not tasting that good if you are out there looking elsewhere!

What has the LDS done to you personally accept because you read some buzz words and desire to grind off some of your life crap that has nothing to do with the LDS.

People it is said, tear down others to make themselves feel good!

[colorcountry]

yep

[Grig]

“I AM an ex mormon, whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not. You simply don’t like it because I’m not a MORMON HATING ex mormon. Tough.”

cc is treating you the way she and her fellow travelers accuse us of treating all ex-Mormons. Hate does that to people, what a shame.

[sandude]

That’s good.

[WOSG]

Schism? With the situation of Rudy G. running on an open pro-’choice’ social liberal agenda, there will be a schism, for legitimate reasons.

“Mitt’s religion is no more likely to advise his direction for the nation than Kennedy’s Catholicism did. Well, maybe that’s not a good analogy,”

Agreed.
- Where the analogy fits is that Kennedy didn’t spend any time at all in the White House being ‘catholic’ or trying to convert anyone, etc.
- Where the analogy also fits is that Kennedy’s *personal* character is what occupied the White House, not his religion. We got his quick wit, his putting his brother in as AG, his womanizing, and his decisions on Vietnam, Cuba, Berlin Wall, civil rights, we got HIM, not the Pope. We will not get Joe Smith or Brigham Young, we will get Mitt Romney as President.

And that is all I ask here: Let’s keep the discussion about Mitt Romney’s fitness for being President on him, not on “the heresies in Mormonism”, because in the end it will be Romney’s character, competence and vision that will determine how his Presidency goes.

As for the argument about electability based on the Mormon issue, IMHO that is a circular argument. Only a few hard-core bigots will fail to listen to reason, and those are the same quarters using that argument about electability. A Romney nomination may well deliver an HRC as President. If it happens because and few anti-mormons couldn’t pull the lever for a good Republican over an awful Democrat, they will have 4 years to ponder the price of religious intolerance to the country.

[Old Mountain man]

That seems to be the forefront of Assembly of God.

[usflagwaver]

The same is true in California. He is running a great grassroots campaign here, and California has a lot of delegates. Rudy should get most if not all of the California delegates.

[EternalVigilance]

Once again, the point must be made, obviously:

Romney’s utter unacceptability as the GOP nominee has NOTHING to do with his Mormonism. It has to do with his thirty-five year record as a hardcore liberal.

[colorcountry]

LOL...so much for forum “rules.” Didn’t you know it is polite to ping someone when you are attacking them. But I suppose you think you’re free to throw out rules as if they don’t apply to you.

You are as transparent as anyone on this site. I’m not trying to hid the fact that I hate Mormonism. I hate the dogma with a passion. I do not hate Mormons. Again, I will say, I am married to a mormon (and have been for 25 years) and on good terms with his parents who are active LDS. I love, and have a great relationship with my brother who is a Bishop and my mother who is a Temple worker.

I am not bigoted against any person. I cannot stand an organization that has secrets and lies about almost anything.

Sorry - that isn’t bigotry....that is experience.

[colorcountry]

You just hate ex-mormons you bigot! LOL

Neener - neener....

[Hi Heels]

This is the most bizarre behavior I have ever seen on Free Republic. I can’t get past it. Total disregard for the Bill of Rights. *shakes head* It’s a tragedy.

[WOSG]

Bashing Mitt is bashing one of two credible contenders that can actually defeat Rudy. The other candidates besides Rudy, Romney and Thompson have single-digit to zero percent chance.

Bashing Mitt means helping Rudy survive in New Hampshire. Bashing Mitt means helping Rudy have the upper hand in Florida and Cali.

Note to Mitt-bashers: Rudy thanks you for your service to his cause.

[Grig]

“So, if the Lord wanted to set the record straight, wouldn’t He have the right to do so.”

You gotta wonder about people who say the Bible is perfect and complete and infallible, but need a creed to tell them what to believe and who to count as Christian.

[Hi Heels]

First post I’ve agreed with on this thread.

[WOSG]

“And is abortion not actually a religious question, since an atheist should have no problem with abortion?”

Abortion is a human rights issue for the unborn. Even an athiest should be opposed to violating the rights of the unborn.

[Colofornian]

I notice that you & others bring this up frequently. Let me ask you this, did not the Lord basically say the same things to the Pharisees & Sadducee's during his time here on earth? Was he not saying that to “His people” at the time? Hasn’t He basically said the same thing to “His people” from time to time throughout the ages? The Pharisees thought what He said & taught was heresy as well.

You raise a fair question (and I appreciate the spirit in which you raise it).

Before I address it, allow me to respond to one other comment you made:

You’ll notice that Joseph said those were the Lord’s words in response to a question he posed. They weren’t Joseph’s words, but the Lord’s. Now, you can choose to disbelieve the account, & I can respect that as none of us were there.

I'm sorry, but you've read something into the text that's not there. (If you don't believe me, go back and read the entire chapter of Joseph Smith - History) At no time does Smith identify the personage's words as God, the Father, Jesus Christ, etc. (It's not there). The only "clue" we have is that there were two unnamed "personages"--and that one identifies the other as his "son."

Now for your previous question: You are right in that Jesus heavily condemned the Pharisees. But let's compare one spot where Jesus was especially critical of the Pharisees (Matthew 23) with Smith's statement that said all their creeds were an abomination in His sight...

In paragraph after paragraph of Mt 23, Jesus seems almost "brutal" in his "woe to you" statements...he calls them "blind" and "snakes" and "brood of vipers!" But even in the midst of his harshest criticism of the Pharisees, did Jesus condemn all of the Pharisees' creeds the way Smith did of Christians?

The answer is "No." Let's look, for example, at the Pharisees' creed & practice of tithing. Did Jesus condemn that creed? (No) In fact, he clearly tells them that indeed, they were practicing important parts of law (they just failed to practice "the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy, and faithfulness." (Matthew 23:23)

He didn't call their creed of tithing an "abomination in God's sight." Here's what he said in full context: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

In other words, he got on their case for two things: The sin of omission (not practicing justice, mercy and faithfulness); and the sin of hypocrisy (yes, believing and doing what was proper tithing-wise, but disobeying the more important matters of the law).

If you're looking for a thinly sliced commendation of an ugly chapter about the Pharisees, Mt 23:23 is it. Now compare it to Smith's "nuclear bomb" approach against every Christian, every Christian church.

Are any of these churches right according to this "unnamed personage" Smith cites? (No, not one)

Are any of these churches "joinable" according to this "unnamed personage" Smith cites? (No, not one)

Is there even one Christian creed that's commendable among these other churches according to this "unnamed personage" Smith cites? (No, not one)

Are these sects' leaders "all corrupt" according to this "unnamed personage" Smith cites? (Yes, all of them)

If the authority of God had still been in the Christian church--any/i> Christian church, would an LDS "restoration" been even necessary? (No, it wouldn't have been)

So, then do the LDS believe the apostasy was complete in the Christian churches? (Yes, they do)

But, it’s not like the Lord hasn’t spoken like words throughout history & most of the time through His prophets. OFTEN, those words through the prophets were rejected by His people, & in the name of heresy as well. How do you know those creeds weren’t an abomination in His sight?

OK, I've addressed that above. Whatever creeds the Christian church was practicing in 1820 that were an "abomination in his sight" I at least know that it wasn't true of all of them. So if Joseph was wrong on this point, then he was wrong on everything else, because God does not bear false witness...

...against a church that his own Son said the gates of hell would not prevail against it;

...against a church that the Holy Spirit told Paul that only SOME would abandon the faith in the latter days (1 Tim. 4:1);

...against a church that was promised to reflect the glory of God "through all generations" (Eph. 3:21).

After all, those that formulated the creeds claimed no direct intervention from the Lord...

Why do you assume this? (You're telling me that no 1820 Christians believed Hebrews 1:1-2, where Jesus is described as a living Prophet for the last days?) Hebrews 1:1-2: In the PAST God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, BUT IN THESE LAST DAYS HE HAS SPOKEN TO US BY HIS SON..."

...& a lot in those creeds have no scriptural backing as well. So, if the Lord wanted to set the record straight, wouldn’t He have the right to do so. And if He did, wouldn’t you expect a backlash from “Christian” churches kind of like what’s happened w/ the “Lord’s people” throughout history?

OK, let's assume for a moment you're correct in this. And let's assume since you cited earlier the example of OT prophets, that Joseph was just another prophet in a long string of prophets coming along to, as you say, "set the record straight."

Well, now you have to argue from silence. What do I mean? I mean, I find in the OT where God labels all as "unrighteous" (Isaiah), but even in Isaiah's day God never leveled the charge of total apostasy of his covenant people. The Israelites at their worst were never written off as God's covenant people...I mean even Ezekiel 38-39 points to possibly some future "restoration" (& I don't use that word in the same manner LDS do)--but even in these past 2,000 years, we have had true Messianic Jewish believers...there never was a total 100% Jewish apostasy (and frankly, even LDS believe this because they say the apostle John never died...that he's still somewhere roaming the earth).

As for the "backlash" you mentioned, yes, if things were as you say, of course there would be a "backlash." (So you've come to a very logical conclusion) But again, I'm not "admonishing the Lord" for His audacity to as you say, using His sovereignty to "set things straight." I'm not "backlashing" against the Lord sending reformers to reform His Church (frankly it's been needed and necessary in every generation). But reformation and restoration--particularly the way LDS use that term (meaning "complete 100% apostacy)--are not the same thing.

You can't tell me that God makes three clear prophetic statements through Jesus and Paul (Matthew 16:18; 1 Tim. 4:1; Eph. 3:21) and then tell me that He was a false prophet because none of them turned out to be as predicated.

I respect your opinion that the Lord didn’t appear to Joseph Smith, but how do you know for SURE? If you don’t know 100%, then perhaps you shouldn’t cast aspersions upon those who feel they do. If you have concrete evidence that the Lord didn’t appear to Joseph Smith then share it w/ us. Otherwise I’ll consider your opinions as no better than mine, Muslims, Hindu’s, or any other religion out there, & perhaps you should treat it likewise.Well, this would take another discourse. Needless to say, you can look up all the false prophecies Smith made online (David W. Patten; about the Temple in MO; etc.) [And I'm sure others here could provide exact links]

Listen, if you could prove Smith was 90% correct in his prophecies, that doesn't mean batting .900 is a good thing. If you bear one false prophesy, then you're a false prophet. (A lot of folks are jailed thieves due to only one robbery).

But so as to wrap this up along what I've already referenced above, my challenge to you is to re-read Matthew 16:18, 1 Tim. 4:1, and Eph. 3:21 and then compare that again to the absolute nuclear blast like statements of Smith...by "absolute" I mean two small words in his First Vision: "None" (of sects were correct or joinable); "all" (creeds an abomination); and also "all" ("professors corrupt").

Either you call Jesus a liar in Mt 16:18 and the Holy Spirit mistaken in 1 Tim. 4:1, OR, you begin to question the thoughts and ramblings of a 14-year-old lad.

[Hi Heels]

"I am not bigoted against any person. I cannot stand an organization that has secrets and lies about almost anything."

CIA, FBI, US Government, Utah Legislature, Fidel Castro, Canadian Government, Disney Store Management, Men in Lockerooms, Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, Monterey City Council, political campaigns, .... Lots of targets. You just chose Mormons.