Not This Mitt Again
The serious rumblings are already out there. Undaunted by the failure of one of the most expensive presidential primary runs in history, Mitt Romney apparently wants to take another shot at getting the GOP’s nomination. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is “quite sure” Romney will run, and has said that the former Massachusetts governor “would be my preference.”
Sadly, there’s a hoary tradition in the GOP that certain establishment-favored candidates, even though they’re not the best available, have somehow earned “their turn.” That belief has usually led the party straight to the presidential political graveyard, which includes the campaign corpses of John McCain (2008) and Bob Dole (1996). Following that tradition this time around would mean that the party’s “it’s my turn” nominees would have moved from a somewhat conservative and usually credible war hero (Dole), to an occasionally conservative and all too often not credible war hero (McCain), to a decidedly not conservative and not credible guy who didn’t serve (Romney). There’s a reason why the GOP is often called the Stupid Party.
Perhaps the most potent portent that Romney’s 2012 aspirations are serious lies in an attempt by some to explain away his 2008 defeat as supposedly the result of his membership in and the public’s bigotry against the Mormon religion. In a pair of presentations on the program at the Mormon Media Studies Symposium earlier this month, a trio of Brigham Young University professors attempted to “prove” this claim. According to the Salt Lake City Deseret News:
[BYU prof John] Gee cited examples of counter-cult activity by the John McCain and Mike Huckabee campaigns. These politicians would slip false information about Mormons into a casual message.
… “[The media] need to know some of these things that have been going on that haven’t been covered, the way the coded language and off-hand remarks can be inserted in,” Gee said.
… “Mitt Romney will not be able to overcome half a century of hate and bigotry, but I would love to be proven wrong,” he said. “The media has to get the story correct, and it’s too much to ask for.”
Cry me a river. As far as I know, and I followed the GOP primaries very closely, the only evidence that anyone attempted to use Mitt Romney’s religion against him was one alleged early-December 2007 push poll in Iowa. Oddly enough, the only people who came forward to claim they had received the offensive phone calls were Romney campaign operatives, who “somehow” forgot to tell the press that they were on the candidate’s payroll.
The alleged push poll gave Romney, whose Hawkeye State campaign was already in serious trouble, an excuse to garner national attention with his “Faith in America” speech. Patrick Ruffini, who was blogging at the site of Romney cheerleader Hugh Hewitt at the time, observed:
This is relatively unexpected. Romney’s Mormon faith, though ever-present, has not been as big an issue as could have been expected earlier in the year. Questions still linger as to whether the most recent Mormon “controversy” (the push polls) actually reflected any real concerted anti-Romney strategy.
Apparently Professor Gee won’t let the lack of real evidence of a “concerted anti-Romney strategy” based on Mormonism get in the way of a historically revisionist fable.
I’m one of those Americans who’ll opt out should the Republicans ‘offer’ us the old POSs for candidates. No way will I vote for Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, or the other “Republicans.”
We need new blood, Americans like jindal, Christie, Bachmann, Nikky (Nimrata Randhawa) Haley – and I’m even okay with the terrific lady, Palin, if the other options fail. I’d rather see this ship we call America going down than living in a rotten lifeboat that sucks. We can always rebuild America.
If the current president and the previous idiot did not open our eyes, we’ll deserve whatever entails.
To lump Newt Gingrich in with the likes of Romney, McCain, Giuliani and their ilk shows an ignorance of history and politics that is stunning. The real conseervatives in the Republican Party have always turned to Mr. Gingrich for savvy, sound advice. He was already a hardcore conservative when Ronald Reagan was still a Democrat. Unlike many politicians, he is an interesting man, too, wise on a whole array of issues. If you pay attention, you can learn something from him every time that he makes an appearance on TV. He has always had a lot of worthwhile information to contribute to any discussion on any issue.
especially when newt told us that man made global warming is indisputable and we need a green conservatism?
newt has some good ideas but can come up with some real losers; he is best left as a commentator from the sidelines
Now, now, now, daxypoo, that was a fib, and you know it. Newt never said any such thing.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20393
daxypoo,
Human Events and their writers don’t have much, if any credibility. For example, when Ann Coulter was an avid supporter of California conservative, Duncan Hunter, during the months preceding the 2008 Republican primary, she wrote an article for Human Events in which she blatantly lied that a front-runner and Duncan opponent, Mike Huckabee, was too liberal to be one of the Republican Party’s candidates for POTUS, and she went on to viciously trash Huckabee in her article for no other reason than just to be bitchy.
Well, guess what? When Duncan Hunter dropped out of the primaries, he endorsed, now get this, Mike Huckabee, of all people, saying that he (Duncan) and Huckabee shared all of the same values, which made Ann Coulter look like a complete jackass. True story. Ain’t that a hoot? (I could cite other examples of the lies on Human Events by Coulter and their other writes. But for the sake of brevity, that whopper by Coulter should suffice.)
i think its time for you to put your money where your ass is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TdYsacneDY
gingrich, is a smart guy but is of the old rino mold
he is easily swayed but public hot button issues and will sell his soul to be in the spotlight
Tsk, tsk, tsk, daxypoo, temper, temper.
You don’t take repudiation well.
Too bad your mommy let you grow up to be a spoiled brat, throwing childish temper tantrums whenever you don’t get your own way. Our three-year-old is more mature and more rational than you are, and I mean that in the nicest way.
A link to an article by Gingrich doesn’t convince you?
I’m thinking troll.
Hmmmm, you might be right. We’ll watch him closely to make sure. You never can tell who might be a troll nowadays. Thanks for the heads-up. he he he he he he he he
You obviously haven’t paid much attention of late about who Newt has been associated with in public. Newt killed his own brand by appearing with Pelosi, cheating on his wife and acting, generally, like so many RINOs. The only stunning ignorance is yours.
So Newt Gingrich is a Rino, huh? That is hilarious, you ignorant jackass. He has been accused of being many things, but never, until now, of being a Rhino.
Like all of us, Newt has made some mistakes, and he admits it. But when one weighs fairly and objectively his mistakes against the totality of his many accomplishments and his services to the Republic Party and to America, he stands head and shoulders above most politicians, a giant among pigmies.
You dumb schmuck, you don’t know squat. You’re just a clueless blowhard and bullsh*t artist. Your assinine comment proves it.
oh, poor baby, did i make you upset?
Not at all, daxypoo.
But I see that you’re sulking, because I took issue with your inaccurate comments.
Project much? Open mouth, insert foot often, too, do you?
A husband is to be above ALL things loyal to his wife.
If he can’t be loyal to her and respect their union how can he be loyal to US?
You don’t know what their maritial situation was. Maybe his first wife was a classic bitch. Who knows? Newt strikes me as a pretty mellow guy who doesn’t get irked easily, and who tries to resolve disagreements amicably, which he had a history of doing in Congress. So that was a pretty bizarre blanket judgment that you made, Carn, especially since you don’t have a clue as to what was going on there in Newt’s first marrige. You’re grasping at straws, unable to find fault with Newt for any legitimate reasons. Remember, Ronald Reagan got divorced and remarried, too, and that didn’t make him a bad person either.
Irrelevant. Loyalty on calm seas is easy. If a bad mood is all that’s required for him to shuck his vows (that he is bound to regardless) then he isn’t fit for the stressful life of a president.
You aren’t even rational.
Take a hike, you nut job.
Oh wow I guess this is the end of a rational debate.
The second someone implies a lack of intelligence/rationality on the other side you know for a fact that they’ve failed.
Good day (or at this point night).
Gingrich is a Pied Piper.
He makes great conservative speeches and talks a conservative game in interviews but his legislative record is one of stabbing conservatives in the back at every opportunity.
He supported all manner of unconstitutional big government legislation such as the largest single increase in DOE spending in history, loan guarantees to China, NAFTA and GATT, to name just a few.
He’s an internationalist who advocates for world government (he considers Henry Kissinger his mentor) and believes America’s founding principles are obsolete, as he made clear in his recommendation of Alvin Toffler’s “The Third Wave” as essential reading and in his forward to another Toffler book, “Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave”.
As bad as the others may be, Gingrich is far and away the worst of the lot.
Suffice to say, Steve, you’re a clueless blowhard and a bullsh*t artist, who doesn’t know squat, and who just made up all of that tripe that you wrote; the purpose of which will elude any rational person.
Newt Gingrich endorsed Dede Scozzafava… that disqualifies him for me. It showed he was more interested in party politics than electing a conservative. Any argument Dede wasn’t a RINO went out the door when she dropped out of the election and endorsed the democrat.
Sorry Newt, thanks for your service, but stay home.
When you can’t find fault with Newt for legitimate reasons, make up lies. Some of you people are so sleazy, sick and twisted.
did I make up something about Newt?
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/newt_gingrich_endorses_dede_sc.html
Read for yourself
That was just silly, idle gossip, rotto,
not an even marginally credible source.
Only a fool would believe that bullsh*t.
There is trash like that all over the
internet, put there by people like you.
You are really not too smart, are you?
Romney, if very unfortunately elected, would be the first 100% market driven presidency. No decision will be made without first doing surveys and polls to see what the “The American People” really want or — much more importantly — want to hear. You guys bitch about Obama ignoring polls like this, (while you do your own ignoring of somewhat more telling polls like this), but just imagine a President who won’t say or do anything without first checking the likely effects on his poll standings with middle America. He would be the Budweiser Select 55 of Presidents.
BC, you are a stone librul. Thanks for your advice concerning whom conservatives should support for POTUS. I’ll return the favor, you libs keep supporting Obama, I beg of you. A sure decision for your defeat. LOL.
If Romney is foolish enough (or vain enough) to run, he won’t get past the primary.
So your assessment and observation are moot, doncha think? [TRY] to be rational, BC.
You try to be a nice guy…. Truthfully, even Palin would make me less nervous than Romney. While governor, his behavior after a Boston tunnel accident in 2006 was pretty creepy. In comparison, Palin just sounds like a misinformed soccer mom who’s been watching wayyy too much Fox News — kinda dopey but not nearly as sinister..
In any case, have a nice turkey day all you right wing numbnuts not trying to make the world a worse place (if such exist, that is….)
Romney, Palin, Huckabee and other 2008 candidates are history, They just don’t know it yet.
The Republican Party will field a whole new array of dynamic and impressive candidates.
Ummmm….you realize Palin wasn’t running for the GOP nomination in 2008, and hence wasn’t a ‘candidate’, right? Unlike the other two you mention, Americans were never given a chance to vote for her in the primaries.
Of course you did.
I won’t dignify your comment by addressing it. Take your meds and take a nap, or take a hike.
OMG.I hope we get some new blood. We have crap to choose from.
Hillary’s gonna have her stompin boots on and Carville by her side, better get ready whom ever runs.
Annonymous says, “We have crap to choose fFom”, which shows (1) that he hasn’t been paying attention, (2) that he is a brainless twit who doesn’t know anything about current events, and (3) that he is a fool who has nothing worthwhile to say here. It’s infallible: People like him who are so judgmental and critical of politicians lead lives which are disasters and trainwrecks.
Romney is unacceptable. He’s one of the most blatant power-seekers in the GOP’s ranks, moving from state to state, constantly vying for ever-higher office as a Republican despite a lack of attachment to limited government / free market principles. His sole strong allegiance is to his own advancement.
Romney is one of a number of politicians the GOP should be trying to expel from its ranks for their departures from the party’s platform principles. He’s the sort of candidate whose nomination would persuade me not to cast a vote for president in November 2012. If the Republican kingmakers nominate him, they’ll get exactly what they deserve. Unfortunately, the country will get it, too.
I agree with you, Mr. Porretto. And Huckabee and Gingrich are equally ill-suited for the job but in slightly different ways than Romney.
I’ll stay home if any of the three are chosen; and the Republican Party can go get groped for all I care if that’s the best they can do.
If the establishment foist even one more RINO on us, this life-long conservative will work for a third party to replace it. Things are that dire here; we haven’t got months, much less years, to diddle around with a party that DOESN’T GET IT.
No libertarians need apply, either.
In a debate about healthcare reform during the 2008 primary season Mittt blurted out “I like mandates”.
Don’t be fooled by the pretty face, the nice suit, and the slick hair and words.
Nominating Romney automatically robs the Republicans of virtually all of the power of their argument against ObamaCare, and it’s going to be a critical weakness for Mitt in any primary debate, even in neighboring New Hampshire.
So far, his efforts to separate Commonweath Care from ObamaCare have been basically along the lines of “I created the most super-awsome of awesomeness health care plans in the history of awesome health care plans. It was only the liberals in the Legislature and Deval Patrick who came in and screwed everything up.” Which just is not going to translate well in a GOP debate setting, even if he also drags out the argument that it’s OK for the states to come up with unworkable bureaucratic-nightmare health care programsm but that the federal government should butt out.
“I was wrong,” would serve Romney much better as a position right now than trying to explain why your genius was simply corrupted by Bay State Democrats, who caused the cost of Commonwealth Care to go through the roof. But based on Mitt’s past history, that apology will come sometime around the South Carolina primary in 2012.
“Nominating Romney automatically robs the Republicans of virtually all of the power of their argument against ObamaCare”
Yours is the key point.
Yes, the Republican Party earns it’s name of the Stupid Party again and again, who knows why we never learn our lesson of picking bad candidates. Every election the Republican base keeps hoping that maybe this time the Party will find a good one…it’s kinda like the Chicago Cubs…there’s always next year.
I never understood his appeal to folks. Sure, he studies up on his subjects. He sounds best when he’s waxing wonky. When he talks about Conservatism, he just goes flat. I know what Conservatism is, and Gov. Romney, you ain’t it.
He’s just another Lib Republican spinning words to sound Conservative, conflating it with all kinds of liberal nonsense. At least Bush was a true SoCon. Romney is to the Left of Bush. Perhaps he is a kinder, gentler Nixon. Still a Lib Republican.
McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee… these Conservative Democrats have no party to call their own.
Good insight there, Marc Malone. If the Democratic Party hadn’t gone all communist on us, I do believe that’s where the four horsemen you cited would feel most at home.
the RNC gave us the 2 Bushes who pushed our nation toward the New World Order spoken of by the elder Bush.. W overspent to the point where our nation is in dire straits, making us vulnerable to the new world order.. Mitt is the next in line at the RNC.. Reading Sinister Forces A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft, we find out that Mormons believe there is room to work with Islam…
The New World Order will have Islam as the religion, their god is our Satan.. and sharia as the law, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and means death to all non Muslims…
Don’t forget the RNC spectacular picks of Bob (“Its my turn”) Dole and John (“I’m an aisle crossing maverick”) McCain
We need more Chris Christies running for president and fewer Mitt Romneys. The Republican Party is either going to embrace its new-found conservative values, or its going to go the RINO route with Romney. If the Republicans want to hang on to power and NOT become an irrelevant third party, they had better NOT go the RINO Romney route.
Personally, I don’t think Romney stands a chance. I don’t see why Republicans will find him any more attractive now than when he ran last time against McCain, the father of all RINOs. Christie won’t run because he just became governor and still has to prove himself with at least one term under his belt. Palin could be a strong contender, but she has too much baggage and too little experience for the job. My bet is that it’s going to be somebody out of the blue, somebody nobody ever considered a strong contender, possibly Jim DeMint or Bobby Jindal or someone like that.
We’ll see how things shape up, but I doubt it will be Romney.
Jim DeMint, yes, he’s by far the best of the entire field, bar none.
The establishment guys look down on him — and that’s a VERY good thing, in my opinion. They didn’t like Ronald Reagan either.
Those establishment guys sure are stupid, giving us such a telling cue as that.
Yeah, darcy, but anybody can see that you’re a real intellectual. LOL!!!!!!
I retract that snide remark. While reading further down on the page, darcy, I discovered that you’re not quite as ditzy as I thought that you were initially. Please accept my apology. Happy Thanksgiving, ditzy.
Romney need to give it up; he comes across as a ‘fake’; insincere; not quite as bad as Obama, but slick anyways.
The establishment won’t be able to force ‘their candidate’ down our throats anymore. Besides, Romney was quite nasty, and backstabbing the last time around.
This may also have something to do that all these guttersnipes coming out of the woodwork to destroy Sarah again?
If Mitt is “the One” as the GOP nominee in 2012 then it’s “hosta la vista baby” and, no, it won’t “I’ll be back”. The divorce will be final, forever.
I’m with you. Nominate the RINO Romney and I’ll guarantee there will be a credible 3rd party candidate.
After all these years Mrs. Blumer’s little boy Tom is still doing the devil’s dirty work for him..
Never underestimate the Republican Party’s ability – no matter if it possesses overwhelming political advantages in a given election – to pick a safe, standard, establishment, *loser* nominee. It’s a talent that the GOP has turned into a finely-honed area of expertise.
The Beltway crowd is already beating the drum loudly (e.g. NRO) for the Mittster (the better to nip any “non-approved” candidacy before it even has a chance to start up), and that will only get worse if someone the Beltway crowd doesn’t like shows some promise early on in the process.
This election, more than any I can recall, isn’t about Republican vs. Democrat as much as it’s about the inside-the-Beltway/incumbent/elitist power structure vs. the rest of us. Republicans and conservative-minded independents should keep that in mind when the GOP establishment starts telling us what a great nominee someone like Romney would be. Don’t believe a word of it.
If the Republicans put up Romney, or Huckabee, or God Forbid, Gingrich they might as well not bother putting up anyone to run against Barry in 2012 because by doing so will ensure that Barry gets a second term. There has to be a new face, Chris Christie for example, who is inspirational, level headed and seems to really want to reduce spending and control the deficit. But Romney? No thanks.
No to Mitt
No to Huckabee
You can say that again. NO MITT, NO MORE. By the way what is a “Mormon”?
follower of later day saints
You mean: member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Based upon the Book of Mormon promulgated by one Joseph Smith. It’s one of history’s oddities.
yes, but now is not the time to get into it
let us not get started on the tribal or league of elders or whatever they are called
But Romney’s religion is very significant; many American voters, including me, think Mormonism is kinda goofy so we won’t vote for him to be president*. He’s amazingly lifelike, I’ll give him that, but…Commander in Chief? yeeg.
*in addition to his failure to be a conservative.
Good article. Romney is a bright man and an excellent manager. In many respects, he could be a good president. But, not in the critical respects: his continued support of RomneyCare shows that he simply doesn’t understand that it was a disaster from the beginning. It was undoubtedly well-meaning, but many well-meaning things have turned out badly.
The only hope he has to convince conservatives and Republicans that he is not just Obama-lite, would be to state frankly and unequivocally that he thought RomenyCare would work, but it hasn’t and it can’t. That it needs to be repealed along with the ObamaCare monstrosity it spawned.
Even then, I’m not sure I could bring myself to vote for him. Which I would have done in 2008 had he been the nominee….
Yeah, but at least Mitt isn’t Sarah Palin!!
(Help me. For some reason I’m channeling Karl Rove. Somebody hurry and call a priest to perform an exorcism. Save me, please.)
LOL!
Sean Hannity always talks about Karl Rove as the architect of Bush 43′s election successes. What he fails to mention is that Rove was also the architect behind the Bush Administration’s many failures (massive spending, No Child Left Behind, etc.) and the 2006 GOP election disaster.
Rove is one of the most unprincipled, unethical people in politics … and that’s saying a lot.
Aw gee, and here I thought that Karl Rove was Lee Atwater’s favorite protege, because like his mentor, Atwater, Rove was a brilliant strategist and tactician. Hmmmmmm, you learn so much from the empty-headed bullsh*t artists on this website.
BTW, dimwit, Rove didn’t make policy decisions. Bush received counsel on those issues from his cabinet.
One thing for sure, Rove was most certainly the man behind the drive to bring Hispanics into the fold through AMNESTY.
That isn’t strictly true. He agreed with Bush. He didn’t advocate that position.
As a fine, decent and compassionate man and a Texan, GW has always empathized with Latinos, as does his brother, Jeb, also. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps you should research how GW, Cheney and Rove interpret the word, amnesty, for illegal aliens from south of the border. You might be pleasantly surprised.
hahahahahahahahahaha no
If Mitt is the GOP nominee there will be blood, in the form of a third party! My God, to be recommended by Orrin Hatch! That is the kiss of death to anyone of the conservative movement. I would never bring up his religion but there is something in the water in Utah. How could you have a large family with all of those sons and not have at least one go into the US military? It tells me that they have an agenda and we ain’t it.
Mitt Romney is 50 years too late. He should have been born sooner, so he could have run against JFK. He would have been the ideal candidate to defeat JFK, and its doubtful that there would have been a Cuban Missle Crisis or even a Viet Nam War if he had been prez. (Which is NOT to say that I would support him now. These are different times that we live in.) Just say’n, though.
The man had his shot and lost. Time for an honorable man to step aside and let one of the tea party conservatives run. Same with Palin. Raise money, fire up the base, advise candidates, but have the maturity, grace, and wisdom to accept the results of the last election and step aside.__
The problem is “had his shot and lost” types are *exactly* who Republicans tend to nominate next election cycle.
The problem is “had his shot and lost” types are *exactly* who the Republicans tend to nominate the next election cycle.
“Same with Palin. Raise money, fire up the base, advise candidates, but have the maturity, grace, and wisdom to accept the results of the last election and step aside.”
Nonsensical and ignorant of the events of 2008. She didn’t run for President, and has never been in a primary. She never ‘had her shot.’
Try again.
Although I do find your thinking amusing, if not wrong-headed: “Sure, Palin can do all the hard work and everything short of actually running for President, because of…..?????”
She had a shot at VP, surrendered her Governorship,and is basically a celebrity. She, like Huckabee went into entertainment and are now out. Besides, the point of the article on Romney was that his negatives are lethal to a successful run. Anyone really think that th Liberal media is ever going to let up on her? If she runs and gets the nomination, Obama wins a second term, AND the tea party is finished.
Amen
Don’t like Mitt – never have. Too much of a RINO for sure. He is the one candidate the Republicans could nominate that would VETO the repeal of Obamacare. Bet on it. Pence/DeMint would be great.
Like it! Rubio (if he remains conservative) will be a great future candidate because of his positive outlook and love for this country.
What do you mean, [IF] Marco Rubio remains conservative? You are not at all familiar with his impressive record in the Florida State Legislature, are you?
The man is remarkable. He garnered 52% of the votes in a 3-way race, which was unprecedented in Florida. He is [very] popular with Republicans, Democrats and Independents, alike.
The Republicans need a strong CONSERVATIVE candidate to be a foil to Obama’s Marxism; the wishy-washy Liberal Republicans & RINO’s are not the answer, including Mitt Romney. I believe the candidate will be found somewhere in the Tea Party Republicans & is not on the radar at the moment.
Gee, so all those liberal Democrats who say Romney as a privileged empty suit were right. Where were you folks back then? On the Romney wagon (or strapped to the top of it) that’s where. Better late than never. How long till you see Palin for the charade she is?
Now you’re just being absurd. There’s a reason Romney spent double what McCain and Huckabee spent combined and came in third anyway.
“On the Romney wagon (or strapped to the top of it) that’s where.”
I missed the part where all of us Romney-Band-Wagon-riders gave him the nomination.
Doofus.
Right, sorry, you were on the McCain bandwagon. Much better. Fix the dang fence.
I worked for Mitt in 2008 because I felt he was superior to all the others fiscally and frankly, I can’t stand John McCain. Tom does need to get his facts straight about the combined smear campaign of Huckabee and McCain against Mitt being a Mormon, especially the claim of the “Reverend” Huckabee stating that he didn’t know that Mormons were Christians! His inference was that of course Mormons are not Christians. What kind of guidance Hucker’s Baptists received during his time as a pastor is a mystery to me, that is not what I learn in my Baptist church. Soon after that comment we saw Huck join up with McCain in one primary assigning his votes to McCain when he saw Romney was going to beat McCain.
So his appearance as a regular on Fox is particularly grating to me. But then I don’t like Juan Williams either.
No to Huckabee too.
And no to McCain for that matter.
Blumer, boy you sure made your case on why any self-respecting conservative should never consider Romney. Your writing was so brilliant, so well-researched, so well thought out. For example, you mentioned “hunting twice”!- ok, I vote based on that information, as I’m sure every other well informed conservative does. Oh yeah, his father didn’t march with King- yep, another supremely important fact for me to base a vote on. Another feather in your cap of brilliance- Romney actually said once that Obama had a backbone!!!! wow. You have persuaded me that someone who can actually speak for over an hour sans teleprompter (sans means without- based on your obvious genius I can’t presume you know that) and who has his educational, professional, political, and volunteer life open for all to see is someone that I simply can’t consider based on your incredibly uber intelligent analysis.
I would much, much rather have a poorly educated man who furloughed two criminals as governor who went onto murder as the next republican candidate for president! No way should I ever consider someone who actually has serious economic and business experience to understand how best improve our economy. No, I’ll tell my un-employed neighbor to never, ever vote for someone who has extensive executive experience on job creation, but hey, let’s keep the current schmuck who’s clueless about economics in so more people can lose their homes!!!!
Last, as a Latter-day Saint, (some people might call me “Mormon”- again, I didn’t think your genius would accommodate such knowledge) I find it intentionally obtuse and disingenuous on your part not to admit the obvious digs made by Huckabee and others about my religion. Hate Romney all you want (but please be intelligent about it) and hate Romneycare with impunity like I’m sure all of Massachusets does, but seriously are your stupid? Even Wolf Blitzer on CNN refuted Huckabee’s asinine’s “innocent” question to a reporter about LDS theology. You obviously know jack about religions and how baptists hate mormons and how they actually have a budget to promote their strange movies/books/pamphlets about my church. Walk in my shoes for a day to get some really ignorant questions, assumptions, and accusations about my beliefs. Go see to the Pew foundation about recent studies of religions and do your research- if you have that ability, that is. Otherwise, I hope PJ doesn’t post any more of your embarrassing insipid and vapid columns.
tank, you’re being disingenuous. Romney’s fibs tell me something about his character. He’s no different from Hillary in that regard: ambition before honesty.
Sorry about your miserable life as an American Mormon. It sounds as bad as being an American Muslim. Why don’t you guys get together and have a pity party?
there are way too many similarities……
As convenient as it would be to be able to blame “religious intolerance” for people disliking Mitt, the bitter truth is that no one really gives a crap about your religion; I suspect that this reality is the more frustrating aspect to people who take themselves so seriously.
I appreciate the Mormon desire to support one of their own at almost any cost, and I agree Huckabee was being disingenuous with his little question about Jesus and Satan being brothers in Mormon theology (which, of course, they are in the sense that they are two of the Mormon God’s many children). But Baptists don’t “hate” Mormons. They do, as their faith requires, try to win them to orthodox Christianity just as Mormon missionaries try to win Baptists and catholics to their unique form of heterodoxy.
The religious question as regards politics is the concern about a president having someone he considers a living prophet to whom he owes allegiance. I thought Mitt addressed that issue well in his religion speech. But Mitt is very hard to trust, not because he is a Mormon, but because he plays to the audience very, very well. I absolutely do not have any idea what he really believes politically…and I want that certainty. Men without evident core values always seem to let us down.
I’m looking hard at Pence and Jindal.
@ Waye Wilson re: “The religious question as regards politics is the concern about a president having someone he considers a living prophet to whom he owes allegiance.”
Yeah, did you notice how Mitt got the prophet on the phone every time he had a big decision to make as Governor of Massachusetts ? And all those Massachusetts citizens felt so helpless while the Mormon hierarchy was in charge of their state ?
I get your point, but you might want to take a look at how non-Mormon Utahns are treated (iow, what happens when they have the upper hand).
The majority of the USA’s population, which Frank Luntz recently found is sensible, constitution-loving, and conservative, cannot and will not abide Mitt Romney receiving the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2012. We’ve had more than enough of this Mitt.
Tom, then how do you account for Romney’s prominence in polls? I don’t like him either, but I see Republicans once again on a suicide course.
the prominence in polls is due to the outdated and out of touch republican machine that just wants to be liked by demos
not to worry— the public is up on current events and know that republicans do not equal conservatives and our rage ranting on an hourly basis will keep the heat on the wishy washy repubs
Nah, it’s just that, as always, gossips in the MSM don’t know enough to have anything else to gossip about. So those dummies rehash old news, which is what dumb, unimaginative and gossipy busybodies do. Never mind the sleazy libs in the MSM who try to influence developments and outcomes by pushing Republicans who are sure to lose to Democrats, trying to convince a gullible, uninformed and ignorant Republican electorate that those inappropriate candidates are the most viable candidates, all for devious, sleazy and subversive reasons. But we’re onto them, aren’t we? We would never be dumb enough to nominate someone like, oh let’s say, Sarah Palin, would we?
touche
Great point.
The media is telling us daily who they fear…
If they’re foolish enough to run, neither Romney, nor Palin, nor Huckabee will get past the primary.
Maybe none of these candidates will win the nomination but I think there’s something to be said about the value of having them in the race. For example, on fixing the economy, Mitt is clearly the most qualified of all the “household” names. I would like to see him run because any candidate who is going to beat him is going to be forced to do his homework and take a stand on fixing the economy. If there is *no* candidate running who has a good economic plan, we all lose.
There are several [current] Republican governors of states who are certainly just as qualified if not more qualified to properly address your concerns, three of whom in particular are so experienced, charismatic and articulate with such strong records that they will make dynamic and impressive candidates for POTUS in 2012, providing, PROVIDING that they can be pursuaded to run for POTUS.
Dont remember who was leading in the polls before the last election? Our great hope Rudoplh Giuliani, who had the nomination practically in the bag. Well, at least before the voters started voting.
I like these polls because if Romney is the alleged nominee for the next 2 years, it means that he will be crushed as soon as the primary season starts.
Oh come on Tank, knock off the religious persecution crap. Mitt is a RINO and you know it. He has changed positions more time than Emelda Marcos has changed shoes. He may be a good business man but that does not make one a good leader. He seems a decent sort but he is not the budget cutting monster we need at this moment in our nations history. Huck is an abomination and has no place on any national ticket unless it is as a Senator where he is one of a hundred. Let’s all ignore snide comments from web posters and look at the actual skills that the potential candidates possess. The number one trait that any Republican nominee must have is the ability to take a beating when it comes to making a tough decision that is unpopular. Sticking to his/her guns is a must in the upcoming battle over or deficit. Mitt has not shown that trait and neither has Huckabee.
Let’s see, not good enough to be president, but good enough to be a senator! And we wonder why the country is where it is?
Well, it is certainly the season to be making the age old GOP sound “Squabble, squabble, squabble”.
Republicans have a real problem. They can’t stand winning.
The love of Chris Christie would die quickly, once people got a sense of where he stands on the leftists favorite “wedge” issues, that dupe Republicans each and every time.
In fact, each and every GOP serious candidate knows that getting snared by leftists setting leg snares…and the Republican “base” snapping them shut on their behalf, spells the doom of national candidates year after pathetic year.
Defeating the nanny state or “Mama Obama”, should be first and foremost in any patriot’s mind. It isn’t. So, we will continue to be groped, stripped, taxed, and shredded because the GOP has no sense of who it is, who it serves and why it should focus on certain issues and not on others.
It is time for a third party. Maybe a parliamentary style of government. The GOP is going to prove to be useless in taking on the fascist leftists, in fact, they will wind up being their best friends in the end.
“Defeating the nanny state or “Mama Obama”, should be first and foremost in any patriot’s mind.”
yes. YES. YES!!!
And for that reason, everybody reading and commenting on PJM should remember that any Republican is, oh, about 1,000 times better than the marxistonsteroids Obama.
For many committed conservatives, the sad fact is that their ideal conservative candidate probably won’t get the nomination. Each candidate has flaws of one nature or another and the arch-conservative isn’t any more likely to get the nod then the arch-opportunist like Romney.
Too much passion against any candidate is the real danger, because becoming too invested in one candidate will cause some people to foolishly opt out of the election in 2012. That’s why I hate to hear invective against Romney, Huckabee, Newt, and Palin. Arguments are good and healthy. But invective is dangerous. Again, even Mitt is so much better than the Obama that it isn’t even worth discussing.
But I am likely to be attacked for stating these plainly obvious facts.
We will win if we keep cfbleachers admonition in mind.
“And for that reason, everybody reading and commenting on PJM should remember that any Republican is, oh, about 1,000 times better than the marxistonsteroids Obama.”
—————-
Ah, no.
Juan McCain would have been pushing everything that Obama has been (back door amnesty, cap & tax, health care, internationalism), but “party loyalty” would require the in the beltway republicans to support “our guy” and the “solutions” would have had bipartisan support.
Every republican currently sitting who has not been voting 100% against every Obama bill is part of the problem.
Anybody who can’t see a difference between McCain and Obama is as big a problem as Obama is…you just don’t have the power the marxist has been granted.
Doesn’t matter whether you call yourself a conservative or not, you don’t think rationally.
My remarks were adressed specifically to people like you. Enjoy your serfdom.
Proreason, you are seriously deluded if you think there’s really that much difference between McCain and Obama. Just remember this: the genius behind campaign finance reform — and the deep pockets for its lobbying — was George Soros. Who runs Obama? George Soros.
DADT, and a few other issues are mere window-dressing for McCain. He’s in league with the grand cabal, just like Obama. Didn’t you know? The two of them are both knights around Soros’ round table, vying for their own share of the take. I thought everybody knew that.
Anybody can see that darcy is the authority on such issues, what with her brand new G.E.D.
You just have to laugh at these guys, doncha?
Otherwise, you would have to pretend that they are rational.
McCain = Obama. Sure, that’s the ticket. Why, just look at campaign reform! Twins separated at birth.
Jeez.
I retract that wisecrack and apologize.
You’re no dummy, darcy, that’s for sure.
You’re just, well, sort of semi ditzy.
In darcy’s defense, proreason, I can see where she was coming from.
I suspect that her point was quite simply that Mr. Magoo is/was Obama-lite.
To be sure, he pretended to be more conservative when he was running against J.D. Hayworth, especially in view of Jan Brewer’s recent legislation, popular with so many of his constuents, and, of course, that phony now pretends to be opposed to Obama’s agenda, too. But Mr. Magoo has always been a flaming liberal trapped in an ex-POW-s body. Make no mistake about it.
Maybe this guy will set the Republicans straight.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
Yeah…somehow I don’t believe for a second you give the first flying crap about the Republicans getting set straight. Go peddle your B.S. somewhere else, troll.
And you’re still a doofus.
Still wincing from that McCain defeat, eh?
Hey Liar. Hypocrite. What about this? “You people”?
14. Your Sensei
“You people need some new heroes.”
November 22, 2010 – 7:03 pm
29. Your Sensei
“What the hell is wrong with you people?”
November 22, 2010 – 8:06 am
7. Your Sensei
“Yeah, you people sure now how to pick em… ”
“Go ahead, I’ll wait . . .”
November 9, 2010 – 7:16 am
49. Your Sensei
“And you wonder why we hold you people in such low regard.”
November 6, 2010 – 7:20 am
Wow Really
It’s stunning how uninformed, arbitrary and gullible you people are.
October 20, 2010 – 4:14 pm
Betty Knows
You people are precisely what’s wrong with this country.
Carl
I swear, you people are beyond help.
August 14, 2010 – 12:39 pm
Praetorian
But the Constitution is a bit inconvenient for you people right?
July 29, 2010 – 6:18 pm
Praetorian
It’s gonna be a rough eight-years for you people (i.e. fascists).
July 3, 2010 – 8:46 pm
119. miriam rove
you people are mind bugling
June 22, 2010 – 2:05 pm
45. G Marks
You people are hilarious.
June 13, 2010 – 8:34 am
139. Principal Levine
One day, when you people finally regain your senses…
May 21, 2010 – 2:04 pm
20. sleazits
You people sure know how to pick your saviors.
January 30, 2010 – 9:58 am
“You people”. The tag of tags. Persons Galore? What? Where? Me…??? No, I’m as clean as Doris Day!
The Kick Me sign is looking like Mr. President’s poll numbers. Not that that really means anything, right Born sleazits?
Kicked, rolled, used and discarded. Yeah, it’s beginning to sound like one of those CW songs you so despise.
And another reminder or two -
sleazits
“You act like I’m trying to hide my identity,…”
Jan 28, 2010 – 3:06 pm
How about some more admissions?
sleazits
“35 and 84 are me, and I stand by them. The others are others.”
June 11, 2010 – 3:42 pm
And the classic “you people”.
39. Moho:
“…you people really do make me feel like an intellectual giant.”
Jan 8, 2010 – 5:38 pm
139. Moho
I could lie about it from here to next Thursday, what difference would it make?
Nov 4, 2009 – 8:01 pm
Not much difference Liar, not much.
Whatever.
Got an idea. This will be fun. That last one was a near record. Why note go for it? Post ‘em all in one big strand. Think of the comments!
What’s the matter poor thing, the Liar gig got you down?
Let’s serve up a bit of canned Liar gushing to lighten the hypocrisy load on the used and discarded Liar –
sleazits
Weeeee haaaaah . . . hoo . . . hoo . . . hoo . . . bwaaaaaaa haaaaa haaaa . . . hoo boy . . . I can’t take it! . . . It’s too good! . . . hoo . . . hoo . . . wow, I haven’t laughed this hard since . . . ha ha ha. . . whew . . . I don’t know . . . How do y’all do it? . . . whew . . . ok . . . ok, I got it together . . . darkie . . . a ha ha ha ha . . . oh . . . too funny . . . great stuff . . .
July 23, 2010 – 6:09 pm
Whatever.
One of my favorites! Keep em coming. Clang!
Whatever.
You realize, don’t you, that [none] of Mr. Lucky’s gibberish is his own material?
That dimwit has plagiarized excerpts from the lines of trolls all over the blogosphere.
Trouble is, that fool is too ditzy to recycle those words and excerpts in their proper context.
That’s why it reads like gibberish. Mr. Lucky ain’t the brightest bulb on the tree.
“Plagiarized…”???? Oh my gosh!!!
“…[none] of Mr. Lucky’s gibberish is his own material?”
Check out this 1-2 combo by the self proclaimed most of the mostest Modern Liberal Logic in the Celestial Cesspool. In its own Pesons Galore back and forth –
Your Sensei
One of my favorites! Keep em coming. “Clang!”
“Whatever.”
November 23, 2010 – 8:06 pm
Gee, Born sleazits, were did “Clang!” and “Whatever” come from? And it looks like the Passy Galore Funhouse Mirror is dissing you… again. Self hate. Lying has its liabilities, Alice.
Come on Born sleazits Persons Galore, you can do better than laying out that Your Mostest Importantest Proclamations are something more that “gibberish”.
“Trouble is,” Persons Galore went down the Liar Road, and there’s no coming back. Too much invested in a thought process based on being a Liar.
That Kick Me sign riveted to your ass is looking more like Rudolf Hess every day. Clang!
And for old times sake,
sleazits
“‘Stop the fight, Ref’ . . . I think you have me confused with Sarah Palin.”
Jan 29, 2010 – 11:13 am
Poor thing.
You made your Cesspool. Love it or leave it.
Love is in the air. Does Mr. President still love you?
Whatever.
Mitt is a con man.
He’s the slick and charming handsome dude that wants to marry the plain rich girl, not for her money, but for true love, of course. Her friends smell a rat, but she’s in love. Ooops, too late! He’s gone and so is the money.
Sucker born every minute.
The only reason that Hatch supports Romney is because he’s mormon. That’s all the GOP mormons in Utah care about is electing a mormon to the presidency. When Palin was picked, the headline on the deseret news was “He didn’t pick Mitt.”, not “first woman GOP running mate” or anything else, it was all about Mitt because Mitt is all they cared about. I would not be surprised if a big portion of the Utah GOP electorate in 2008 stayed home and didn’t vote because Romney wasn’t picked for VP. After Romney was out of the running for any place on the ticket, most of the Utah GOP mormons tuned out of the election.
From the 2004 and 2008 elections (source page for links; 2004 is a PDF, 2008 is an XL):
Turnout in 2004: 73.7%
Turnout in 2008: 67.8%
Total votes cast for President were higher in 2008 v. 2004 (971K v. 942K) but only because the number of registered voters went up by 12% in the intervening four years.
Bush-Cheney won Utah by 71.5-26.0 and got 664,000 votes. McCain-Palin won by 62.6.-34.4 and got 596,000 votes.
Though it may have been a factor, it’s not at all fair to say that “most of the Utah GOP Mormons tuned out.” Yes, turnout was lower, but lack of enthusiasm for either McCain or Obama, totally separate from bitterness over Romney not being on the McCain ticket, could explain that.
I think a big portion of the LDS community sat out across the West in ’08 – thats how Obama got Nevada, kept it close in AZ, and blew out in CA, OR and WA. LDS panties-in-bunch is probably a bigger factor in Western state elections than pissed off Mexicans (see Kausfiles for a debunking of the Mexicans put Harry Reid back in office theory). You might need Romney as a VP, but only if 1) DeMint, Jindal, or Rick Perry is the Presidential candidate, and 2) if northern Virginians are scared of losing their jobs and contracts and other rust belt states tack left again.
Have we learned nothing?! We need a strong, practical candidate with rubber-meets-road chief executive experience … you know, someone who understands a balance sheet and knows how to lead. There are some pretty impressive examples in the governor ranks, but Romney is not one of them. If the Rs go down the “it’s his turn” road YET AGAIN, they can kiss my vote good-bye.
The nominee must be an uncompromising conservative with no ambitions beyond rescuing the country from the mess of the past 50 years, somebody who isn’t interested in a legacy or winning approval from Europe. Using these criteria, the person should be intelligent but not an intellectual, skilled in going toe-to-toe with bullies and bs artists, a patriotic American who believes in the constitution and somebody who can pick good subordinates and get them to work as a team. If this person were invited/endorsed by key members of Congress, this person would also have the clout to make key federal departments carry out the will of the people. Above all, this person should understand that the sovereignty of the people is the key to turning the country around.
Europe is getting its #$it together on a lot of things- a U.S. presidential candidate should be aiming for approval from the likes of Merkel, Wilders, Berlesconi and others.
they may be getting their s*** together but that does not mean we need to appeal to them
the us needs to appeal to her own citizens and be an example for others to model
The next year will tell us whether the Repubs. are really serious about governing conservatively. Keep in mind, they only have 1/3 of the power. But their style will give us some clues.
When the “swells” in the Repub. party have Mitt Romney as their pick, you know that they are no serious about chopping the gov’ment down to size. I’m sure that is why they hate Sarah Palin. Even Laura Bush made a snide comment about Sarah, as if Bush did a great job running the country.
Somehow I feel the people are in a race against both parties to hang onto our Republic.
We need someone confident in his/her mission (like Reagan) and the sheer determination to push reforms through (like Cristie is doing in NJ).
Sorry but, Mitt, Huckabee, Thune, Gingrich don’t fit the requiments for a committed reformer.
DeMint would be my first pick, but not sure he is running in order to remake the Senate, in spite of the wailing of the elites.
Are you sure it was Laura Bush? I think it was Babs being snarky about Palin.
Romney will never get a minute of my time, a dollar of my money, or my vote.
With the positions he’s taken he’s a non-starter.
Romney of last election cycle’s candidates was the obviously superior choice- now if we’re talking next cycle and someone like Christie jumps in, the equation changes. But vs. Palin or the Huckster? Easy choice to go with Romney- I don’t want to lightweight Presidents in a row.
Romney knows what the economy needs and is the only real choice of those who are obviously running.
Again, Christie has my vote any day he wants it, but I doubt he is throwing his hat into the ring…
Mitt Romney is truly a leftie and both by record and demeanor could never get elected. Mike Huckabee on the otherhand does excellently in head to head polls against BHO. Independents like him and like it or not those are the folks that end up decising the election. If we want to say good bye to BHO its time to rally around Mike Huckabee.
I will agree that Mitt Romney is not perfect. But he can win the Presidency and will help revive the economy. I was there when he won in Massachusetts. If he had won the nomination in 2008, he would have gone after Obama in ways that McCain refused to. While McCain refused to engage Obama directly in the debates, Romney would have gone right for the throat to demonstrate Obama’s lack of business or executive experience. Romney would have forced Obama to win the Presidency on his terms. Romney is brilliant, and very strong on his feet. If you don’t believe me, go back and review his debates in Massachusetts when he had to debate Shannon O’Brien, as well as the liberal moderators. He will run the Presidency in the same way that Eisenhower did: efficiently and effectively. He is also a pretty good guy, although that image of him never shines through. He is more cautious than other politicians, but he is also more reliable.
In response to your points above, I would make two counterpoints: (1) Regan and Bush (the father) were also the party’s “next in line” candidate; and (2) Romney was relatively unknown nationally in 2008 and he was McCain’s only serious contender.
I agree that Romney has to answer for RomneyCare and he has hedged his bets on social issues. But he is the best candidate to revive the economy by providing the necessary tools for business to grow. Remember, Romney is, more than anything else, an expert at turning around failing businesses–a skill he can utilize to turn around the failing economy. We need that now more than ever. So long as he appoints judges like Scalia and Roberts, the social issues will take care of themselves at the state and local level.
Please give Romney a second look…
I agree !!
I agree that Mitt was John McCain’s only viable contender in the primary. And if Huckabee hadn’t decided to tag team with McCain against Mitt (with the full blessing of the RNC and the MSM), Mitt would have won easily.
I have my doubts about Mitt taking a second whack at it. And I would rather see some fresh blood in there. But I still like Mitt, and he still stands head & shoulders above anyone whom the pathetic Democrats could put against him. But I dunno, he needs to kick it up a notch. He needs to commune with his inner Reagan and find a way to FIRE UP the GOP rank & file (screw the GOP establishment — the Tea Party movement has proved them to be out of touch with the zeitgeist of our time). He needs to strike a better chord than what he offered in 2008. He needs to slice through the anti-Mormanism that infect both Right and Left in this nation (as Kennedy was able to disarm the anti-Catholicism of his time), but more importantly, he needs to do a better job of CONNECTING with work-a-day, freedom-loving, instinctively-patriotic Americans: people who vote consistently and who continue to represent the backbone of the American-voter demographic (I mean, let’s speak honestly, even though “Democrat-Plantation” blacks and (especially) newly-arrived Latinos make up a significant portion of the American electorate, they (as a block) simply do not turn out to the polls in the same sort of percentages that their “racial” counterparts do).
Other than working, fathering RomneyCare, Mitt was a loser in Massachusetts. He basically bought a near dead state GOP, and then killed it. He had in state the political skills of a clueless dolt.
I’m even surprised he was able to wade through the preliminary knife fights for money and power with even buying off the Democrats for creating the citizen serfting ( creating a process of serfdom ) Romneycare in the two years he drifted around the executive office until he ran full time for the nomination. Corruption? Last three speakers, felons, and the fourth with a brother on the FBI’s Most Wanted. Nada. Coat tails? A blond( naturaly ), Harvard ( naturally ), wealth ( naturally ) stiff. And not Meg Whitman. ( Boy, does Mitt love a wealthy, blond Harvard stiff. His idea of ethnic stretch is a strawberry blond ). State Judges? He couldn’t care less, and left it to the Democrats, for free. He didn’t even try to get a pitty pick. Not one single GOP appointment. Left them out to dry. Just like he left the state after the election, to his home of California. Or Utah, or Michigan, or New Hampshire, or Mass…( He has more home states then positions. )
Mitt was a genius with the Olympics. ( With a federal bailout). He was first to propose assistants to Detroit ( With a federal bailout ). His Romneycare is only alive with yearly federal bailouts. He was for Obama’s GM/Chrysler union, Democrat federal bailout.
He is a bland, boring, politically rootless, and ambitious in a profoundly limited way.
Go Ahead all of you Ron Paul and Hucka-Bots, bolt the party when Romney is Nominated, you’ll be quickly replaced by fleeing Democrats, Romney IS a Conservative and is the best option for the Republican Party and America. Your fear of this man seems frantic, gotta be more to it than slick hair.
?????!!!!! WTF??!!!
romney a conservative? wtf???!!!! best option????!!!
massachucetts health care system?
surely this was in jest
He won’t be nominated.
He’ll be nominated before Palin or Huckabee ever get the nomination…and the more candidates the merrier, Romneys base is solid.
Romneys base is solid.
Yeah, in Utah, and no where else.
“As far as I know, and I followed the GOP primaries very closely, the only evidence that anyone attempted to use Mitt Romney’s religion against him was one alleged early-December 2007 push poll in Iowa.”
Tom, it is quite apparent that you did not follow the GOP primaries as close as you think you did.
http://hotair.com/?s=mormons+mitt+romney
http://newsbusters.org/search/node/mormons%20mitt%20romney
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/search/?cx=016417505616455789357%3Akzxdbhrxkj0&cof=FORID%3A9&query=mormons+mitt+romney&x=11&y=8
A second look for Romney? Are you serious? A Mitt Romney nomination would ensure an Obama re-election. Romney is the second-coming of Bob Dole. He is our version of John Kerry. Boring, white and male assures us a major defeat in 2012. Newt spend too much time on a love seat making global warming commercials with Nancy Pelosi. Christie is not running.
That leaves us with the Mama Grizzly to devour Obama in 2012 fueled by the Tea Party!
agreed– our best candidate is the one that scares the libs the most
atm this is palin but we still have two years to go
anything less than a principaled conservative is a failure
i would vote for ted nugent before i voted for any rino
Boring, white and male are not the problems, principles are the problems. Romney is just another big government Republican and that’s the last thing we need. But after the rise and fall of The One I would love a boring President, I dream of a boring President. Someone like Gov. Daniels who is boring and bald but can cut a budget like nobody’s business.
We have a lot of successful conservative governors who are keeping their states fiscally sane, we don’t need to look back at the last crop of losers.
Nah – Mitt isn’t another Bob Dole. He’s more like the GOP’s version of John Edwards, the Democrats’ Breck Girl.
Mitt wants to be President so much he’ll tell anyone anything they want to hear – and when he governed MA, he proved he is NOT a conservative, fiscal or otherwise. If the GOP nominates this shyster, I’m switching my registration to “independent,” and I’ll vote third party in 2012.
Mitt won’t stop our country from spiraling into a debt-ridden banana republic – he’d only slow it down a little. At least Obama would hasten the day of reckoning instead of merely postponing it a few years.
Chris Christie? Better do some research folks. He’s NOT a Conservative.
No, you’re right. Christie’s not a conservative; he’s a fiscal reformer, which is good, but he also happens to be soft on illegal immigration.
Sometimes you have to wonder how well thought out these guys’ political philosophy is.
This is a nonsense article and poorly fact checked by a person that obviously hates Romney and is probably in bed with either Huckabee or Palin.
Mass., by law, must provide abortion in any state sponsered health care. Romney would’ve violated the law had he not. Moreover, any law would have been struck by the liberal high court in Mass. For the same reason, Romney couldn’t stop gay marriage once the high court decided it was a right.
And as for Mormonism not being in the equation, maybe Mr. Blumer forgot about the whole “Jesus/Satan are brothers” comment Huckabee made at a press conference or the things that McCain’s mother said about Mormons.
This article is full of lies and mistruths, which is typical of politics. I’m not advocating Romney for president, but let’s please stop the lies and speak the truth. Then we can decide who to vote for. But when you write this garbage, you denegrate the entire process.
Governor Mitch Daniels- The Anti-Obama
I would vote for Romney in a heartbeat. I will NEVER vote for the incompetent Palin. She just needs to stay on reality tv. It fits her well.
Sarah Palin can be on The Real Housewives of Wasila Alaska. Cant stand her whiney voice.
Kudos. (Like fingernails screeching on a blackboard) And she’s too cutesy, too.
Great.
Y’all go ahead and vote based on things like resonance of voice and false judgements of “competence” based on personal style. Wait just a minute… I think America just DID that in 2008!
You can even throw in some denigrating–almost vaguely misogynistic– stuff such as equating accomplished female candidates with the bimbo “housewives” on TV.
Sorry, but I’m voting on principle and policy, not style.
Hey, why don’t you Tea Partiers run Christine McDonnell for your POTUS candidate in 2012?
You have such an, um, impressive record of choosing your own candidates like, um, let’s see …, O’Donnell, Angle, Fiorina, Rossi and Miller. (Don’t say you chose Paul and Rubio, too. They were already way, WAY ahead in the polls LONG BEFORE you ditzy Tea Partiers endorsed them to givee yourselves at least some credibility.)
My head hurts.
I like Mitt. He’s the next Reagan.
As in Ronald Reagan Jr, yes…yes he is.
Mitt Romney’s ship has sailed, his year was 08, his chance is GONE, if he wins the nomination for 12, almost any Democrat can win by claiming that, “WE SHOULD NOT ELECT AN EVIL RICH BIG BANKER TO THE WHITE HOUSE”. With Romney as our nominee, the Democrats win again.
On thing to think about when considering the recycled candidates is that coming fresh out of the box, they were not able to defeat (McCain + Media) with all of his problems & baggage.
What makes you think that after 4 more years in the public eye, with 4 more years of potential problems, the recycles will be able to defeat (Obama + Media)?
Exactly. 2008 primary winner McCain couldn’t beat Obama, sooooo… Let’s try the guy even McCain defeated against him! Brilliant! The Stupid Party, indeed. The Cocktail Party needs to wake up and smell the tea.
I for one would like to see HUCKABEE win the primary. He is hones and has lots of experience.He also hates Obama.
The Huckster is a big government social engineer of the fundamentalist persuasion. No thanks. I’d vote 3rd party if it were Huckchuck v. Bambi.
If you’ve been watching C-SPAN lately, you might have noticed that there is a HUGE story developing which isn’t being covered by the MSM. The Obama Administration and this current, Democrat-controlled Congress have stirred up a hornets’ nest with states’ governors, Republicans and Democrats, alike. There hasn’t been this much strenuous opposition to the Federal Government by the governors of states since the events leading of to this country’s Civil War in the 1860′s. Not just a few of them, but most of them are in open rebellion against this administration and its extremely irresponsible, dangerous and potentially catastrophic policies, making attempts to nullify and circumvent those policies on state levels and in the courts. This country has never had a Presidential Administration and a Congressional leadership that has been this devisive and destructive.
Best news I’ve heard all day. Fact is the states can’t print money and can’t afford the massive new cash outlays on tap when O’bummer care kicks in. They’ll go bankrupt. Probably what Obama, and his pal George, had in mind all along, huh? Cloward-Piven, overwhelm the system.
Katie bar the door!
I watched the meeting of the Republican Gorernors Association on C-SPAN.
It was very interesting, very informative and very encouraging. I was very impressed, too. It’s been a long time since I have seen so many bright, articulate, energetic, well educated and well informed people assembled in a room, a stark contrast to the floor of Congress. I was pleasatly surprised, too, by their vocal insurrection against Obama, Pelosi, Reid, labor unions and the Federal Government, all of whom are morally bankrupt and clueless and stagnating on coming up with realistic, workable solutions to our problems; sensible and practical solutions which those smart and savvy Repubican governors offered in abundance.
There is so much happening live on C-SPAN that one never sees on the news, presumably because they would rather gossip about tripe that only appeals to the braindead.
Excellent observation. Kudos. It was refreshing to see something worthwhile to read here.
I think it is obvious that evangelical Christians would never support Romney. And the shortage of evidence that the author of this article mentions — means nothing.
The evangelical world is filled with serious, thorough anti-Mormon teaching, and to say that maybe there was some push-polling in some county in a primary misses the point: no push-polling is needed. All the work has been done for a long time, in Sunday sermons and Friday morning Bible studies and so on, nothing specific to Romney, but completely specific to Mormonism. I think most evangelicals hate Mormonism even more than Catholicism.
The evangelicals will never say it openly, because they do not need to say it openly.
As soon as I saw that maneuver that Huckabee and McCain pulled in the West Virginia vote, I knew that the anti-Mormon thing was hot hot hot. Huckabee will never admit it, but I guarantee that was the motivation.
X Contra, you are spot on about evangelicals and Mormonism. Year after year they’ve been taught the differences between orthodoxy and Mormonism, and as you say, likely hold Mormonism in even less regard than they Catholicism.
Anecdotally, my family in the south are theologically conservative Presbyterians and Baptists, and while some may be “fooled” by the Huckabee, not a one of them would give Romney their vote. That’s just the way it is. So while Romney would take Utah and parts of Nev and AZ, he wouldn’t do so well in many southern states: TN, AL, MS, ARK, for example.
I disagree emphatically that most evangelical/ protestant Christians would spurn Romney based on religion. What a straw man. In electing a leader to govern, you honestly believe that the specific theology of any Mormon person of faith would be important enough to cause them to embrace instead someone who is functionally an atheist, holds marxist views, wholeheartedly supports abortion, debases the military… ? No, they might spurn him for a lot of reasons besides that –abortion is a good starting place if you want to look at different demographics within those who rejected Romney, but there’s a whole lot of other things not to like besides that. The Mormon factor is just not that powerful. What a straw man argument. Sounds almost– not quite, but getting there– like Obama’s apologists: You don’t like him because he’s black! Uh, no… there are a few other things, ya see…
How do you explain the wild popularity of Glenn Beck among conservatives? I’m willing to bet there are a few… million… Christians who respect and even admire him. On 8/28 I observed a powerful spiritual gathering of a a vast sea of people,which was initiated, organized and led by Beck. No one really gave a rip about Mormon beliefs and finer points of theology, because the broad principles were agreed upon.
I maintain my statement. I am not advancing it as a “straw man” to tear down, as my comment about West Virginia shows.
As for Glenn Beck, that may be true about listening to a goombah on the radio, but simultaneously not true for selecting and supporting a presidential candidate. Not that they would vote for the liberal candidate. I assert that they would simply refuse to vote for Romney, i.e., cast NO vote for president…. then wait for the RAPTURE.
I guess life is tough, and tougher when you are a religions minority in a party with significant percentage of religious voters. This would seem natural to anyone except those with bigoted anti majority blinders on.
( Oh, wait, Mormons can’t be bigots. My bad. )
It will not be Huckabee or Romney. The winning candidate will be fiscally conservative. Social conservatism is for another election. Right now the all important issue is the economic survival of the republic. Tea Party activists will show up in droves and they will have no tolerance for wishy washy credentials regarding tax cuts and spending.
Only his vanity and personal wealth causes Romney to consider himself a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States. He has demonstrated no leadership qualities nor any special expertise in either domestic or foreign matters. In fact his term as Governor of Massachusetts should disqualify him for the Presidency, rather than the opposite.
If no Common-Sense Constitutional Conservative with some leadership experience does not boldy, confidently, and courageously step forward to make battle with the Statist Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Soros Axis on a regular basis, Sarah Palin will run. She is beginning to prepare for that run in case nobody can take the bull by the horns.
Romney will lead to a third-party. He is a disaster for the GOP, and Axelrod prays he gets him as the opponent in 2012.
* Low Conservative/Libertarian turnout
* Vulnerable on his religion
* Ultra flip-flopper on a multitude of issues
* No cajones
* Wooden and terrible at the retail leve (Yes, I witnessed his speech at CPAC 2009)
Man, “conservatives” are ignorant. Mitt Romney was not a banker or a worker on wall street. He started up a consulting group. This is not a subtle distinction.
I’m not sure a wildly successful businessman would make a great president. I don’t know that Mitt Romney could turn around the economy like he turned around businesses.
Still, before you act like he has no business running for president, at least get the facts right. You lose all credibility when you simply recite stuff you read on other blogs.
I thought the article and comments were totally unacceptable. Have any of you Huckabee or Palin lovers ever even heard or read Romney on policy. Evidently, the writer didn’t. But you don’t care because you bought all the Dems arguments against him, he was a RINO, Lefty, – really silly people. You absolutely deserve Obama for another 4 years and if you don’t nominate someone the Independents can accept, Obama will be it. As for the Mormon comments, I think that proves the point that Romney’s religion was a big problem. He really shouldn’t run and you can run a cheerleader type (Obama type) and see a loss. You people just believe anything your happen to read whether it is true or not. There ought to be a civics test prior to voting.
f you note my comment above, you’ll see that I like when Romney waxes wonky. He does his homework. I have no problem with his competence, except his poor campaigning. I have no problem with his qualifications. I simply have a problem with his track record.
He is just another vanilla establishment Republican. His Daddy was Governor, so he became Governor. His Daddy ran for President and so did he. He reminds me of both Gore and Bush. Scions of political families. I think Romney would be better on fiscal issues than Bush, but worse on social issues. Basically a wash for me. Unacceptable.
As for the Indies, I do not care. We are always told by the MSM to get a more centrist candidate, and that candidate always loses. Bush 43 won running as a Conservative, not a moderate. Reagan won as a Conservative. Bush ’41 won running on Reagan’s record, but lost on his own record.
Independents will vote for a Conservative. They will not vote for a moderate. If they want a Democrat, they’ll vote for the real Democrat, not the faux-Republican. They will vote for bold colors, not pale pastels. For all their faults, the Dems DO stand for something. The vanilla Republicans do not. (Quick, what does Romney stand for?) They always sacrifice their principles in the face of the fearsome MSM.
No vanilla Republicans. No pale pastels.
It ain’t religion sister, and never was.
He is NOT trustworthy and only thinks of himself while the Palins and DeMints of the world fight ‘leviathan’, a leviathan he helped to create.
He is not a conservative.
He is not a libertarian.
He is out-of-touch with Americans.
He is NOT a constitutionalist.
And he has no chance of winning the primary, and if he does turnout of the GOP will be SSSSSOOOOOO low that Obama will coast to easy victory.
Talk sense for Frith’s sake!
PUKE,PUKE,PUKE. Romney is no better than Obama-McCain’t. If that’s all they can come up with then the whole party is RINO. Government by losers. PUKE,PUKE,PUKE!
Why is it that name-calling fools gravitate to anonymous comment boards! What cowards. They don’t even care about facts; they get off on venting. Get a life!
Mitt Romney is one of our stongest candidates and it’s dumb to call him names.
It’s meaningless to say how terrible and unelectable one candidate is without comparing him or her to anyone else. By saying Mitt Romney is terrible, is the author saying we should vote for Obama? Presidential elections are a matter of choosing the best candidate from two or more alternatives. The “best” choice is often a matter of choosing the least distasteful since no candidate is perfect and no voter has perfect information about any of them.
In addition to disliking Romney, I wonder if the author has an axe to grind about Mormonism. Of the 951 words in his article, 398 of them where spent saying how religion was a Romney-contrived diversion that had nothing to do with the 2008 primary. The facts simply do not support this assertion, although Romney’s faith was probably a minor (not major) factor in the outcome. Moreover, if the author believes Romney’s faith should not be a factor at all (and I believe it shouldn’t be), he needn’t have mentioned it all. If, however, the author has a deep distrust of all Mormons, then he should be honest and come out and say it.
DR King, I only went there because some people apparently can’t handle the idea that Romney lost in 2008 on the merits and because of decisive action based by determined activists.
The evidence shows that there was no concerted effort to defeat Romney based on his religion. You’ll note that Patrick Ruffini, and at Hugh Hewitt’s site no less, agreed. And while I’m at it, the vast majority of the links provided by “G” in an earlier comment above either aren’t contemporaneous or have to do with liberals and MSM types making an issue of his religion, not the candidates themselves.
Mr. Blumer, I disagree that anti-Mormonism was a non-factor. A study done at Vanderbilt University concluded the “flip-flopper” charge made a convenient cover for anti-Mormons:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1956386/posts
The monitors of Huckabee’s website allowed numerous comments to make many attacks on Romney’s religion. And Huckabee himself in a conversation with a New York Times reporter linked Mormon beliefs with the Devil:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TFL9B81&show_article=1
Moreover, anti-Mormon sentiment is evident in a few responses to your own article.
If your point is that anti-Mormon sentiment was a relatively minor factor in Romney’s 2008 campaign which he might have overcome had he succeeded in winning over voters on substantive issues, I agree with you. But I think its wrong to suggest anti-Mormonism wasn’t and still is not present.
Whether we are talking about Romney, Huckabee, Palin, or anyone else, I think its important to be realistic and not expect perfection. I cast my first Presidential ballot for Ronald S. Reagan very reluctantly, because I didn’t know him very well and was nervous about his appeals to religious conservatives. Once I got to know President Reagan, however, I loved him. Nevertheless, Reagan had his faults just like every other person (including Washington and Lincoln) who served (or will serve) in that office. If we demand perfection, we encourage candidates to act shallowly rather than show us what they really think. I think its best to focus on substantive issues such as jobs and foreign policy.
Thanks for responding.
So here’s the deal. If the Republican alternative is Romney, I’m writing in Palin. Better we keep the devil we know (Obama) than elect someone we have no clue how he’ll morph. And hey, Palin could win a write-in if the other choices are Obama and Romney.
People should call RomneyCare Massachusetts Care, shortened as MassaCare. MassaCare and Death Panel will make catchy slogans during an election campaign.
How about Rep. Mike Pence? He lacks name recognition but he seems solidly conservative.
PS: Brian the Arbiter, does this post meet with your approval?
What is reprehensible is how many Mormons support Mitt just because he is a Mormon.
Do you see me, the Catholic, supporting that ‘probably in Hell’ Ted Kennedy and the rest of those hypocrite ‘pro-abortion’ Catholics?
I don’t vote MY religion and Mormons shouldn’t either.
Sapwolf, great point, and (unless I missed it among the comments), yours then begs the question: are Mormons who didn’t vote for Romney bigoted towards themselves? Are they called the equivalent of “Uncle Tom’s?”
This was an outstanding article, PJM!
I dunno, do YOU regard African Americans who vote against Democrat progressive candidates as being Uncle Toms?
So long as LDS voters trend conservative, that’s all that concerns me. Unlike the rest of the voting public, LDS folks said “no way” to candidate Obama. They were right.
@SapWolf:
You basically shot down your own argument. Of course you don’t support Catholic politicians who don’t reflect Catholic values. Most LDS who voted for Romney did so because they have *values* in common, not a particular religious brand. Case in point, most LDS are severely embarrassed that Harry Reid is practicing LDS. Ewwww !!!
Go ahead ‘Stupid Party’. Nominate Mittens.
Then fade out of existence as the Whigs because it will be THIRD-PARTY TIME!
Hmmmm….how about The American Party? I like that.
Third party? Maybe on the Left. I just don’t see it on the right. The Left is lashing out at itself — we are witnessing the early stages of what happens when a routed party elite comes to blows with chastened party back-benchers who have no intention of falling on the sword for the likes of Nancy Pelosi. That is not the case on the Right. The issue for critics on the Right is making damn sure that Republican siver-hairs understand that the rank & file are keeping a very close eye on them.
And as slavery has been a dead issue since 1865, your reference to the Whigs makes little sense.
The Tea Partiers received so much attention from the MSM that, with the ditziest ones, it went to their heads, and they’re ditzy enough to believe that they could become a viable third party.
The ditzy ones to whom I referred are so clueless that they don’t even know that most of their candidates lost, and the ones who won (like Paul and Rubio) were such strong candidates that they would have won on their own merits anyway without endorsements from Tea Partiers. (In fact, Sarah Palin’s conceited combination of nerviness, brattiness and ditziness on behalf of Tea Partiers did more harm than good.)
… Sarah Palin’s conceited combination of nerviness, cutsiness, brattiness, sleaziness and ditziness on behalf of Tea Partiers did more harm than good.
If the animus expressed among these comments against Newt, Romney, Huckabee, and the like should indicate the sentiment prevalent among Republican, Republican-leaning, and conservative voters generally, then I’d observe that none of these “old guard” would generate very much enthusiasm. Obama hit a restart button in 2008, and it will take a new, more uncompromisingly conservative Republican candidate to slap his finger off the controls in 2012: Christie, Mitch Daniels, or another similar person with continuing experience in government who is successfully and persistently “standing athwart” the current tide of Progressivism and who can articulate forcefully and cohesively and persuasively why and who will then go on to outline alternative proposals attractive to the majority. (Therefore, not Palin, although she has a very useful role to play in rallying the base.)
The stakes are too high for the Republican Party to put up any of the candidates criticized in this thread; each is burdened with far too much baggage.
I think that Tom Blumer is conveniently forgetting a lot. The press made a lot over this and there was truly huge right wing fundamentalist resistance but Tom will have to put his glasses on to see it. Having said that I will not support Romney for another chance at the nomination. His swing back from the left is just too dizzying for me to take him seriously. If Mormonism actually figured even slightly into his politics he would be much more appealing to me. Unfortunately his core belief is closer to opportunism than principle so goodbye Mitt.
I backed Mitt two years ago. But next time around I want a new face. Somebody who didn’t lose to John McCain. Sorry guv, but you had your chance and lost to the Washington/New York machine. So far, Palin looks like the best choice for a winner to me — talking heads be damned — but I remain open to any other new-comers. It’s not a matter of who can beat Obama anymore. He *will* be challenged within his own party, and he will not serve another term. What I am most concerned about with the next president is electing someone who “gets it” — someone who is *serious* about shrinking the bureaucracy and growing the private sector. I have had my fill of liars and “good sport” ostensible conservatives.
A few short thoughts on the subject:
Romney seems to be a smart guy who is, at the very least, a deeply uninspiring presidential candidate. He certainly isn’t a very convincing conservative. He certainly does look good. I would have voted for him over the alternative, but not with any enthusiasm. And I say that as a Mormon.
I have a friend who knew Romney well when he was younger. He has a high opinion of his character. That doesn’t really contradict the previous statement.
Sometime late in 2007, I had a friend call me out of the blue. He is a political junkie, and he had been watching footage of Romney trying to campaign in the South. He had been shocked at the visceral rage that various townsfolk radiated towards Romney. My friend’s comment to me was “I had no idea they hated you guys that much down there”. In other words, my friend saw it as being religiously motivated antipathy, not political. That’s no surprise to anyone who has seen it firsthand. Mormon-hating is very real phenomena.
Finally, the following is a transcript of a very good seminar about the relationship between Mormonism and Politics: http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Mormonism-and-Politics-Are-They-Compatible.aspx
Remember GHW Bush saying he liked pork rinds?
Like the Southern Republicans would love, just love someone from Massachusetts. Yes’sum. And Harvard, yes. And someone who’s stiff, and plastic and near nigh Yon Kerry in falseness.
But no, it was his Mormonism. That’s it. Shucks, and I thought all that gun owning, hunting, NASCAR loving, ex-Marine…er…strike that…would of pulled O’l Mitt through.
Kind of missed my point, didn’t you? Just making a few observations, not a full analysis of Romney as a candidate . But here it is in summary:
First, Romney a bad candidate for a lot of reasons.
Second, Evangelical Mormon-hating is real.
@Aza Re: Mormon haters.
“Haters” is too strong of a word, but yes, it is not uncommon for an evangelical to say “I will never vote for a Mormon.” In my 45+ years as a Mormon, I have *never* heard a Mormon say “I will never vote for an Evangelical”. Same theological divide between the two groups but there is a big difference in political tolerance amongst the evangelicals.
Warning: Never use an oven Mitt from Romney – for any cooking agenda – You’ll get burned!
A lot of people seem to already have their mind set about Romney, either pro or con. For anyone who hasn’t already formed an opinion, his book “No Apology” gets you past the media filters and 30-second sound bites and helps you understand how he really does “get it” and can see the whole big picture SOOO much better than the current administration. Romney would be a President of the U.S., not just a president of his political party like Obama.
The political reality may be that only a “fresh face” can get nominated and elected this next time around. BUT, I would hope that any such “fresh face” would have at least 90 % of the insight and values that are clearly demonstrated in Mitt’s book.
The other thing I will say in Mitt’s defense is that he has done a lot of good in helping other candidates get elected and therefore gets some credit for the recent gains made in the Senate and House. That is another indication that Mitt “gets it”.
As long as Mitt doesn’t totally repudiate the last two bullets points mentioned in the column (saying that Obama showed “backbone” in engineering the GM boardroom coup, and claiming that the individual mandate in ObamaCare is “the ultimate conservative plan”), the idea that Romney “gets it” will be sheer fantasy.
And that’s only the beginning of a long, long list of acts and positions from which he would have to way away, of which the first three bulleted items in the column represents but a small sample. But even then, given his track record of flip-flops, why would we have any reason to believe him if he morphed yet again?
Romney is a statist douche.
It be better for conservatives to have a 2nd Obama administration than this jackass.
I do feel that way, that we really don’t need (or want) another turn around the Mitt Romney mulberry bush.
Romney, who is decidedly not a Conservative, would lose to Obama. He’s a younger version of McCain and an establishment darling.
You are entitled to your opinions, Harris. But they are just that, your opinions, which, in your case, aren’t supported by any facts.
I’m pretty sure some people are watching this infighting in glee.
Yooo clazy Amelicans are soooo funny. 8)
I am LDS (Mormon) and I would not like to vote for Mitt.
However, I have no doubt that, unlike the current president, he could and would be an effective executive of the federal government and also an ally of those of us who want to tame and diminish the fed’s dominions over us, a free people. He could beat Pres. Obama because he could steal moderate and swing voters to join with us,the conservatives. He is a proven professional and would not run the amateurish campaigns that lost us senate seats and other elections recently .
The capacity to win moderates is his greatest strength in a national vote but for principled conservatives it is his greatest weakness. We don’t trust him. I feel that the conservatives (42% of the population) want a president with conviction, that will not yield as has been done over and over to those who would control us or take our money in taxes for their own enrichment and glorification. We need such a spokesman that could inspire and convert the part of the population that has not grasped the hope and glory of the constitutional principles that we cling to with such love.
To me, Palin’s folksy commonsense speeches don’t inspire me like Ronald Reagan but she has a way of communicating that makes complex issues easier to understand. She has an infectious love of liberty and our countries potential. I would love to see her battle Pres. Obama and the “state controlled media” in 2012.
Regarding this actual article about Mitt, I have to condemn much of it as shallow, anecdotal, and under-researched (I would love to know the religion of the author). Of course, Huckabee played upon the doubts and lack of information about my LDS faith by using code words and vague innuendos in his campaign communications.
He is a Southern Baptist and I have several wonderful friends of that faith who will openly tell me how my faith is presented by many (not all) of the clergy to their congregations. They inform me that I, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, am not considered a true Christian! The wording in many of Huckabee’s electioneering matches curiously with the wording repeated in those ministries that disparage my faith, thus code words.
I am not upset, per say, that Huckabee used this tactic because I am aware that my religion is not in complete harmony with conventional Christian norms and that only by proving with actions that we are worshipers of Christ can we assuage the doubts of other Christians.
To conclude I would say no to Mitt and no to this pathetic article about him. To the author: Sir, are you actually using some no name LDS professor from BYU as an LDS authority to advance your thesis? Shallow, Sir. Very shallow.
“shallow, anecdotal, and under-researched”
Gosh, AA, I count at least two dozen links in the column, but if you really want the comprehensive look, you can go here for what I left on the cutting-room floor for this column, and here for a full look at the all of my “under-research” from late 2007 and early 2008.
As to the LDS professors at the symposium, there were three, and you would be aware of their titles had you followed one of the aforementioned two dozen or so links:
- John Gee: Senior Research Fellow, Neal A. Maxwell Institute, William (Bill) Gay Professor, BYU
- Louis C. Midgley: Emeritus Professor of Political Science, BYU
- Lane Williams: Department of Communications, BYU‐Idaho
I don’t think they’d appreciate being referred to as “some no names.”
BYU thought enough of them to put them on the program of a symposium “In Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of BYU Broadcasting and the 10th Anniversary of BYU Television.”
Time to just give up on the republican party. If there is going to be a conservative political party in the US then it will have to be a new one. Money and votes on these clowns are wasted.
Yeah, I believe RogC is a conservative, don’t you?
He couldn’t be a sneaky Democrat with an agenda, naw.
He needs to get a life. He posted here uder 7 names.
Independents do not want a RINO (Romney), a reactionary (Palin),or any candidate that is likely to push and rely on social conservatism to appeal to their base. The main problem in this country is fiscal policy. We need leaders who are willing to quit crony capitalism and do what is best for the country in the long run. The social issues can wait until we stop the bleeding.
Exactly what reactionary social issues has Palin been emphasizing to appeal to her base?? I hear energy independence, jobs, smaller, more fiscally responsible government from her, and hardly a word on social issues.
Who I would like for President in 2010:
Rep. Paul Ryan, Gov. Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour. And also and especially Rudy Giuliani who if he were somehow miraculously nominated would almost certainly win.
Who I would gladly vote for (IF):
Newt Gingrich, if he acknowledges that since the faked evidence on global warming has come out, he has stopped second-guessing nature. For all his personal flaws I could see his picture on currency some day — a potentially great President.
Mitt Romney, if he admits the RomneyCare was a failed experiment which has taught him that ObamaCare must be repealed, and the federal bureaucracy needs draconian cuts. He must also convince us that some intervention was the best option at the time of the TARP debate, and that a bailout like GM could only be justified if it could be recouped in full, like the Chrysler bailout of the Iacocca era. Romney would likely eviscerate Obama in debates about fiscal issues and appeal to moderates and swing voters. I doubt he’d lose any traditionally Republican states to B.O.
DeMint, Thune, McDonnell, Pawlenty, Rubio or some other relative unknown, if he proves to be appealing enough to independents and conservatives both to win in 2012. (I think Christie and Jindal have made it pretty clear they are not running, especially Christie who is a real hoot and I’m sure will someday run.)
I’d consider voting for a serious, electable major 3rd party candidate (who doesn’t have hair like Donald Trump) if Republicans nominated:
Mrs. Palin – Loved Peggy Noonan’s piece with a line about Palin ridiculously comparing her experience with Reagan’s: “He was a great man and you are a nincompoop” in the WSJ 11/5/10 ‘America Votes for Maturity’. I will not vote for a younger, less experienced nincompoop when Dan Quayle is still available!
Huckabee – The man called the Club for Growth the “Club for Greed” so he is clearly not a fiscal conservative. I want a candidate who understands the complexities of mortgage securitization, the governmental failures which led to the credit crisis, the ramifications of the decline of the dollar etc. I will not vote for some hick ex-preacher whose career is always in turnaround just because the Grand Old Party has nominated him.
I’d rather vote for a wiser, younger 3rd Party who could nominate e.g. a brilliant guy like David Petraeus, who has done the best job possible in a single-track career not irrelevant to many of the challenges at hand.
Good thoughts. I agree. What is it that they say about great minds?
Alleging “bigotry and hatred” where there is none to deflect criticism, ignite sympathies and dismiss opponents as irrational bigots? Sounds downright leftist to me.
The story about campaign workers feeding the only accounts of such bigotry does not surprise me one bit. He’s deceptive and as slick as politicians come, and shameless.
(Even on the heels of the Nov. 3 election, Romney didn’t miss a single, small chance to be slick. I’m among new Congressman Lt. Col. Allen West’s “fans’ on Facebook. As Facebook targets page suggestions to known interests, on Nov. 3, West’s picture begins to appear in the sidebar with a statement like, “Gov. Mitt Romney congratulates Allen West on his victory!” Should a person, in their exuberance over West’s win and agreement with Romney’s congratulations click “like” under West’s picture, they become the newest addition to the list of “fans” for Mitt Romney. Way to capitalize on another’s success in order to promote yourself, Mitt!)
I would not, could not vote for Romney. And not in that temper tantrum, “It’s not my guy so I’m sitting out to teach the party a lesson, I tell you… and handing the Left a win!” kind of way. No, his manipulative slick repulses me. Just couldn’t do it.
We need an Allen West/ Sarah Palin ticket. Could Cocktail Party Republicans open their eyes to reality for once, and see that perhaps the ship has sailed without them on it?
after reading ALL or most of these comments..addressing the romney haters..what will u do if he is nominated, stay home and let this bimbo or some other dem get re-elected? bite ur nose to spite ur face..blah, blah blah..pretty dumb if u ask me!
I kind of like Mitt. I think he’s extremely intelligent and a problem-solver, unlike Obama. I’m pretty liberal on social issues, so that’s probably why he doesn’t get on my nerves. Seriously, I think we need a gifted individual to get us out of our dilemmas, and I think Mitt fits the bill.
All the negative stuff against Romney here is reasonable solid evidence that the right cannot get it together to win. Actually, I think they would bite the bullet and vote for him over Obama, but they won’t vote him in in the primaries, and, as a result, miss out on one of the guys with the best chances of winning. I’d rather be right than elect a President, eh?
Whatever works for you.
Romney is past his expiration date and so stinky that the only thing he’s good for is to act as RINO bait so we know who to toss in the next round.
The real deals would be DeMint/Rubio or DeMint/Ryan; even Boehner/DeMint or Boehner/Rubio or Boehner/Ryan would be better than anyone else currently being mentioned. I will even back Mike Pence after reading the incredible speech he gave earlier this fall about the presidency and the Constitution at Hillsdale: (http://smokebreak.blogshevik.com/2010/11/25/mike-pence-the-presidency-and-the-constitution/) For if he truly believes what he said and will continue to stand conservatively, he’d perhaps be the best choice of all if we had to choose right now.
What is it about Pajama Media and its Mormon hating articles? First it was an attack on Beck and now its an attack on both Hatch and Romney. Oh sure, you can hide behind the idea that you don’t like them as people, pundits, politicians or any other such things besides the religion. Fine. Count me in as yet another Mormon who has wide first hand experience (and proof with comments in both articles) with bigotry against me and my beliefs. These two articles aren’t the first time anti-Mormonism has reared its ugly head here. One of a few reasons I rarely come here anymore despite its “conservative” credentials.
Mormons are the most conservative people there are in the United States. Yet, ironically, they are the most hated by both the left and the right. The left because they believe in American Exceptionalism and conservative morality. The Right because of their religious unorthodoxy. Its hard to say what side hates them more. Good thing most Mormons are conservative out of principle because they sure aren’t out of loyalty to Republicans who continually call them loonies, religious idiots, and other names. I go to the other article and Lee and Beck, who are Mormon, get attacked for belief in the Constitution and anti-Statism. I come here and Romney and Hatch are attacked for not upholding the Constitution enough. Is it any wonder Mormons stick up for their own when there isn’t going to be anyone else who will with them?
I come here and Romney and Hatch are attacked for not upholding the Constitution enough.
Hatch wasn’t addressed in the column.
You cannot objectively look at what Romney deliberately did in Massachusetts in reaction to Goodridge along with what led up to it, and call it anything but a betrayal of the oath he swore to uphold the state’s John Adams-authored constitution. As I said in December 2007: