Posted on 01/03/2008 11:39:37 PM PST by Maelstorm
A Hard Loss for Romney By John Ellis
It's one thing to lose as you are. What you lose is an election, but there's always another election and in the case of presidential primary politics, a new electorate that awaits you in the next state. It's another thing to lose as you aren't. Mitt Romney was never the 700 Club right-winger his campaign managers conceived. He was and is a man of business and a very capable one at that.
He's all but doomed now. Senator John McCain will beat him in New Hampshire, probably by a lot, and Romney's media coverage will evaporate and his candidacy will consequently die. On January 9, his managers will walk in and say that the campaign needs $10 million or $15 million to continue and that he, Romney, will have to write the check. Everyone who would contribute has maxed out. Everyone who might won't. Two-time losers don't get new money. It's a basic rule of politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Hold it. I thought LDS didn't vote only or primarily on the basis of their faith. I thought, as I was lectured to over & over again by LDS FReepers, that they exclude or almost exclude faith issues. I thought that candidates were weighed on their own merits, not upon the foundations of the identity of voters (like the common bond of LDSism).
Yet, somehow, you're able to characterize & say you represent vast numbers of Mormons. What? Do they vote as a near monolithic voting block?
And the "toast" timing of your comment is rather strange, coming on the day after Romney's defeat. It's almost as if you're saying, with this one comment, "Now that our candidate--our being "LDS"--has lost, LDS voters will monolithically shift our allegiance in the general election to somebody else."
How is it we were repeatedly told that to support or not support a candidate on the basis of their faith was "bigotry," but you're now implying that waves of Western voters supported Romney primarily or only because of the Mormon ties?
I also am disappointed to see a perfectly good political forum turned into such an antagonistic religion forum.
OK, when Joseph Smith published in the 1830s his first vision, he said that ALL creeds that Christians have, whether they be creeds about God, creeds about the church, creeds about the family, creeds about social life, creeds about governmental life, on & on...ALL of them were an "abomination in his [a personage's] sight."
So who started this religious war, this church conflict, this political skirmish? (That's right, Joseph Smith!) Smith was the antagonist.
I mean how would you like if I came along & said EVERY Mormon creed was an "abomination" to God? How would you like it if I came along & said EVERY Mormon professor was "corrupt?" Have I or anyone who challenges LDS ever said that on these threads? (I haven't seen that)
Yet LDS missionaries do that door to door daily. The LDS church publishes that nonsense daily.
Our message should be: “How can we understand and appreciate each other so we can work together for a common political purpose,” not “I am right and you are wrong and we are not going anywhere until you admit you are wrong.”
I think there is certainly room for this. But it has to be done as we also discuss & dialogue & debate our most deepest differences. (It can't be done in a vacuum)
” Under your definition, a Roman Catholic could say that Evangelicals deny any number of “basic, historic and foundational doctrines” from the Catholic catechism, and are therefore a cult.”
And let me be the first, as a Catholic, to say exactly that. Protestest *by definition* reject historical doctrines of the orthodox and catholic churches (in favor of ‘solo scriptura’ interpretations of their own) and therefore by StarTraveler’s definition are a cult.
StarTraveler, you are either a cultist or a hypocrite. Which one?
Or we can correct SarTraveler’s false and phony use of the term cult to point out that ‘cult’ is a sociological not theological term. Mormons may be heretics but they are no more a ‘cult’ than Pentacostals or Quakers.
I don’t understand your thought process in translating female votes into Catholic votes.
Huckabee got a lot of women, but Rush was just dissecting the vote, and Huckabee’s largest voting block was rural, evangelical women. That does not describe very many Catholics.
Catholics are going to be naturally suspicious of a former Baptist pastor, especially one who called the best known Catholic bigot in the country “one of the greatest Christian leaders in America.”
Don’t forget that Catholics, as a whole, usually vote Dem anyway. Only in 1984 and 2004 did the majority of Catholics vote for the Republican. And in critical states, like Florida and Ohio, Catholics are the largest single religion, which is one of the reasons they are swing states. In a choice between Obama and Huckabee with Bloomburg thrown in just to make things interesting, Obama will take a plurality of the Catholic vote.
And, if you’d asked me before the vote if Huckabee would get a lot of women, I’d have said yes, since women tend to vote more with their emotions than their intellect. And I’ll make another prediction: “moderate” women, given a choice between Obama and Huckabee, will choose Obama.
The problem is this: Romney has supported homosexual scoutmasters,
BB: No he has not.
abortion,
BB: He was earlier pro-choice. He has never been pro-abortion. Do you know the difference?
homosexual partnership rights and the like.
BB: Homosexuals are human beings and have rights and can make partnerships if they want. Romney is against having them change the definition of marriage.
He flip-flopped to try to become President
BB: Your opinion.
(no core values).
BB: He has deep core values.
So in addition to the guys like me that won’t vote for a Mormon for President because I think Mormonism is a cult
BB: Mormonism is not a cult any more than Christianity is a cult. And I think you are being narrow minded.
But why discuss it. You will not change your view on this and I will not change mine.
My analogy was a general one...namely that assumptions don't translate into reality.
Catholics are going to be naturally suspicious of a former Baptist pastor, especially one who called the best known Catholic bigot in the country “one of the greatest Christian leaders in America.”
Was the above true of Romney as well? Were Catholics naturally suspicious of a former LDS bishop, especially one who whose ancestor called the entire Catholic church "the whore of Babylon" & who believes that ALL Catholics--Pope and all--are apostates of the faith?
The first term is a euphemism for support of infanticide, the second is the reality. There is no other difference.
“I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation,” Romney said during a debate clip posted on the Web site YouTube.com.
1994 Senate Debate.
You will have to say something rational for me to respond.
Ok, let me get this straight.
If the LDS do not get MR as the candidate they will be so angry that they will vote dem (who by the way are diametrically opposed to stated LDS values).
It kind of like kindergarten, its my ball play the way I want or I am taking the ball home and no one plays.
Had he just wore a pair of jeans and a t-shirt he might have stood a chance, he looks so uncomfortable in that monkey suit, I have never seen a photo of him when he was not in a suit, he never seemed real to me.
Well, let's see. Let's go back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1859. Douglas was for the "choice" of allowing both Southern states & new territories own slaves if a person so "chose." Lincoln, thinking it was untenable to meddle with the Southern states, at least stood firmly against allowing slavery at all in the new states. So Lincoln was for "no choice" in slavery in the new states, roundly criticizing the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision.
So would you, BB, be consistent in sizing up Douglas: Was he, simply "pro-choice" on slavery? You mean to tell us all that Douglas was never "pro-slavery" and that there's a difference between someone saying...
"Yes, oh, I'd never own a slave myself but I'll 'vow' & 'devote' & 'commit' myself [vow,devote, commit were Romney's own words] to 'sustain' [another Romney word] the law of the land as found in Dred Scott, which says that blacks are but mere 'chattel' (property) & that others--not me, never mind you, have the right to own others."
Is this what you're saying? You can be "pro-choice" on slavery without being "pro-slavery?"
BB: Mormonism is not a cult any more than Christianity is a cult. And I think you are being narrow minded.
OK, well, you, BB, have just forever cut off any right you have to call the polygamous fundamentalist Mormons a "cult." (Why, to call them as such would be "narrow-minded" by your own standard.)
There's also offshoot Mormon polygamous sects in Mexico, Texas, Colorado, & British Columbia. Same thing goes for those. There were also break-offs of the LDS church--the Cutlerites, the Strangites, & dozens of others. The biggest & most mainstream of these was the Missouri-based RLDS, now called "The Church of Christ"...I guess you're all "open-armed" now to these as well? These are part of the "true" Zion? If you label any of these as beyond Zion, you would have to accuse yourself of "narrow-mindedness," eh?
Go ahead, then. Tell us all with a straight face that none of these polygamous sects or the RLDS are outside the walls of Zion. (I dare you...I double-dare you).
who whose ancestor called the entire Catholic church “the whore of Babylon”
The fact that you would track down what someone’s ancestor said in order to bash them is sick, in my opinion.
In other words, he is for BSA policy.
What is it about BSA policy you don’t approve of?
I guess I was really bamboozled then. I thought he was capable as an administrator and was impressed with his family, being nice-looking was a plus not just with me, people in general, know he had a couple negatives, flip flopping, and feared that he couldn't win the general because he is Mormon but for no other reason. I chalked some of it off to he had a fine line to walk when governor of MA. I've no love lost for Planned Parenthood, but they aren't only about abortion; they do provide health services to women, not that I'd ever use one for anything or send my family to one except for services other than abortion if there were no other options.
Anyone who knows anything about Mormons knows that they are solidly pro life.
restornu, glad you have your chin up and a sense of humor. Do you support him just because he is one of your own or because of other qualifications as well? You know I am not a Mormon, but I will say this. Obama's supposed Christian religion is a heck of a lot scarier to me at this point than the parts of Mormonism I don't accept. Mormons are at least predictable that they are for America. Obama is one scary wild card, looks good, but what is he really about?
As I clearly stated, odds are very good that the plurality of Catholics are going to vote for the Dem in a three way race.
The point is that those Catholics who would be most likely to vote for the Republican, namely, people like me who are devout social conservative churchgoers, are also the ones most likely to be offended by Huckabee’s statement about Hagee. IOW, Huckabee ticked off the very group of Catholics he otherwise had a good chance of grabbing. And in a country split 50-50 where every vote counts, Huckabee doesn’t have any spare votes to piddle away.
As for Romney, I’m not all that concerned with what someone’s ancestor said, especially since the descendent is going out of his way to be inoffensive. My problem with Romney is that he’s too liberal. My problem with Huckabee is that he’s too liberal and offensive. One I can maybe get over in the general election, albeit with a large clothespin on my nose. But there’s no clothespin big enough to get me to vote for Huckabee.
Keep telling yourself that Huckabee can win Catholics if it makes you feel better. But he can’t and he won’t.
So are you telling us that your peepstone prophet lied? or that he was in substantial error when he claimed ALL Christian denominations and the Catholic Church are apostates? Is it incorrect when Mormons try to pound Christians believing in the Trinity as following apostasy of Tertulian adopted by the ‘roman empire church’? You Moronism apologists are doing so much dissembling it is becoming blatant!
"I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation,” Romney said during a debate clip posted on the Web site YouTube.com.
Boy Scout policy is to NOT allow homosexual scoutmasters. Romney said he "feels all people should be able to participate regardless of their sexual orientation." This is the opposite of Boy Scout policy. You are twisting here and I think you know it. If Romney had left it at the comment that the Scouts should make their own decision then that would have been a fine political dodge. But Romney didn't. He stated his personal opinion that the Scouts should have homosexual scout masters. You can read, so it is ridiculous for me to have to give an idiot lesson on this.
Here’s the “m” I failed to include.
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.