Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Religion and Public Office: The 'Romney' Test
Townhall.com ^ | February 14, 2008 | Rebeca Hagelin

Posted on 02/14/2008 4:34:07 AM PST by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last
To: Court Watcher
Is spelling a requirement for entrance into whatever "law school" you claim to have attended? "There are alot of stupid posters at this site. If you disent, good for you."

This looks like bait for the Viking Kitties!

81 posted on 02/14/2008 7:51:36 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (Bill Richardson: Billions for boondoggles; Not one red cent for Jenny Craig.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

To: Court Watcher
Because HE IS NOW THE NEXT GUY IN LINE.

Romney was popular only by default. Conservatives weren't in his camp until Romney was only semblence of a conservative left in the race. I strongly doubt many of these reluctant converts will enthusiastically support him if there are real conservatives running.

The last 11 elections (beginning in 1964 when the conservative movement really got started) just don't provide very strong evidence for this theory. Four nominating processes are not applicable since there was a popular incumbent Republican President who was essentially unchallenged: 1972, 1984, 1992, and 2004.

Three primary election cycles argue against that theory. In 1964, the outsider clearly won in Goldwater much to the chagrin of the Republican establishment who supported Nelson Rockefeller (a group which included the Romney family). In 1976, although Ronald Reagan didn't win the nomination, his candidancy showed that the Republicans don't always vote for the next guy. As the sitting President, Gerald Ford would rightfully claim the next-guy-in-line title. In 2000, George W. Bush won in a year that there wasn't a clear claimant to the title of the next-guy-in-line.

Four primary election cycles argue in favor of this theory: 1968 (when Richard Nixon re-emerged), 1980, 1988, and 1996. In these years, the Republican nomination was given to the guy who had paid his dues.

Overall, I think the tally is 4-3-4 on the theory which isn't real strong support. After 2008, it is likely to be 5-3-4 which still isn't very overwhelming evidence. It certainly doesn't make it a lock.

83 posted on 02/14/2008 7:58:49 AM PST by CommerceComet (Mitt Romney: Boldly telling the audience whatever it wants to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Court Watcher; P-Marlowe
but in the End will vote for the son of a bitch.

Who will you vote for in the primary? Who in the general?

84 posted on 02/14/2008 7:59:29 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: livius

And you sound pretty ignorant about the whole thing.


85 posted on 02/14/2008 8:02:45 AM PST by Old Mountain man (Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet

Wow a smart poster. I’m so pleased to read something actually intelligent. Good for you. Let’s all support Newt Gingrich for President in 2012 and make the “next guy in line” fraternity die once and for all. We can do it if we are united and if Newt will JUST RUN !


86 posted on 02/14/2008 8:05:54 AM PST by Court Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I Voted for Mitt Romney in my California Primary. I will vote for Newt Gingrich as a WRITE IN, in the general Election of 2008.


87 posted on 02/14/2008 8:07:36 AM PST by Court Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Orin did state afterward that he thought that religious bias was the reason he lost.


88 posted on 02/14/2008 8:30:58 AM PST by JRochelle (The cult of Obama is real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle
Orin did state afterward that he thought that religious bias was the reason he lost.

I wonder if that isn't why Joseph Smith lost too?

89 posted on 02/14/2008 8:40:05 AM PST by colorcountry (To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

well, you sure didn’t see the big push for him or the shouting matches on FR that we saw from the romney supporters.


90 posted on 02/14/2008 9:07:18 AM PST by ari-freedom (True conservatives don't help Democrats win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Court Watcher

Wouldn’t you feel more comfortable with your potty mouth back at DU?


91 posted on 02/14/2008 10:23:48 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Court Watcher

You slime your way over to FR in Nov. ‘07 to recruit division in the Republican party, and you expect to remain hidden? Bwahahaha, you’re outed, dweeb.


92 posted on 02/14/2008 10:26:21 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: livius

>>I think one of the problems with Mormonism is that, like Islam, it is a religion with earthly political aspects and was originally conceived as a theocratic system - and, in fact, its adherents were at war with the United States at one point.<<

If I may paraphrase: “one of the problems with Mormonism is that, like Islam, it does not stand up very well to close scrutiny”.

I think the most interesting observation I made regarding Mitt’s run is not even about Mitt. It is that many Mormons were nervous about the scrutiny their beliefs would get if he ran.

My church would WELCOME such scrutiny. The very fact that they were concerned is pretty telling.

One outcome is that most people know about the underwear now. It’s a small start, but it is a start. I wonder what else would have become “common public knowledge” if they had been scrutinized all the way to November?


93 posted on 02/14/2008 10:28:07 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Court Watcher

Yeah, what a waste of good money.


94 posted on 02/14/2008 10:29:28 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

>>I was appalled by the anti-Mormon religious bigotry displayed by some posters on FR.<<

Me too. But there was really very little of it. Most of it was very anti-mormon, but it wasn’t bigotry. It was well thought out, intelligent questioning of questionable claims. That is not bigotry any more than someone saying most women make lousy frontline marines is bigotry. It is merely an acknowledging of facts.


95 posted on 02/14/2008 10:30:18 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Court Watcher

I just wanted you to know, I’m one of the ones hitting the abuse button on you, agitprop.


96 posted on 02/14/2008 10:31:05 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
I think you got it all wrong.

Mormons welcome inquiries into the religion and the practices thereof.

Unfortunately what you are calling 'scrutiny' isn't an honest look into the religion at all.

The people 'scrutinizing' were in no way shape or form interested in learning about the religion, but rather demeaning another religion or trying to defend their own.

Conversely before they ever started they went in with a vitriolic attitude to tear down and demean rather than learn. Trying to root the hate out of someone's heart is no easy thing.

Its competition among religious groups and from experience that turns ugly because those other groups tend to be threatened by Mormons.

Not liking this, that set the tone for how those religionists handled the situation.

I would liken it to a black man trying to walk into a store labeled 'whites only' back in the 1920's. They don't care WHAT his character is, all they know is he is not allowed and will make it known.

The same apprehension that guy would have is similar to some of the apprehension Mormons have.

Scrutiny and Inquiry is one thing. Attacking is another.

From experience when you try talking to someone who vitriolicaly has their mind made up about something, talking to them is impossible.

Most Mormons saw the fight looming before a word was uttered.

What resulted was a ton of screaming but very few STILL have not put the church to true scrutiny.

Saying "I want to find out what these guys believe in" is one thing...

Gritting one's teeth and saying "I am going to prove to the world that I hate Mormons and they should too" is another.

Despite all the election and the screaming the vast majority of the world still does not know anything about Mormons.

97 posted on 02/14/2008 10:48:11 AM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

You forgot the puke alert on that trash you just posted.


98 posted on 02/14/2008 10:49:52 AM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii

>>You forgot the puke alert on that trash you just posted.<<

And now I know why you thought there was so much “bigotry” here.

Grow up.


99 posted on 02/14/2008 10:54:56 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

When you stop lying I will start growing up.


100 posted on 02/14/2008 10:55:40 AM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson