The Candidates
Featured Archives
The Wall Street Journal Washington Wire reports:
A top official at Bob Jones University, the Evangelical Christian school with a history of anti-Mormon rhetoric, plans to throw his weight behind Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university’s college of arts and sciences, said he believes the former Massachusetts governor is the only Republican candidate who both stands a chance of winning the White House and will reliably implement the anti-abortion, antigay marriage, pro-gun agenda of Christian conservatives.
Couple this with the DeMoss letter, the favorable Perkins comments, and other social conservative endorsements… and we may have a harbinger of things to come.
Look out this weekend at the Washington Briefing. I’ll try to do some spot interviews on these topics with whoever is at hand.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:57 am
[...] post by Justin Hart and software by Elliott [...]
October 16th, 2007 at 8:19 am
I saw a poll recently showing that Romney had more people saying they would definitely vote against him than any other candidate, even Hillary. It could be that his religion is just too much to overcome, and that’s really a shame since he would make a great President I think.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:23 am
a recent poll rasmussen poll i believe has him as the second most likely candidate to beat hillary clinton as well, with only mccain doing better.
so, yes its a shame, but not that much of a shame given he still sits as one of our strongest candidates against hillary.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Thank goodness we have a series of (sometimes closed) primaries on different days and not a one-day national primary. The fact that conservatives vote in primaries stops moderate Republicans from being President, and that’s a good thing I think.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:29 am
agreed
October 16th, 2007 at 8:31 am
More SoCon[s]?
You’re just making this up. There is no major social conservative movement to get behind Romney. He is not the Religious Right candidate. You’re trying to make a story that doesn’t exist seem real, and think that if you repeat it over and over it will suddenly come true.
Fact is, Romney’s got a huge Southern problem and a huge problem within major social conservative movements. His sketchy social conservative history coupled with the fact that he’s a Mormon from Massachusetts is hurting him.
I don’t see how Romney pulls together an electoral victory, either with Fred sweeping the South and Rudy taking all of the delegate-rich states like California, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, and yes, probably Massachusetts.
Clarence, maybe you so-cons have liked what you’ve gotten, but we fiscal conservatives haven’t had a strong small government guy since Reagan. Either way, we’ve never had a guy like Giuliani who came in to defy the conventional wisdom, and we’ve never had a primary schedule like this.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:32 am
I’m getting beaten up from both sides on Romney though. I have Giuliani people on here telling me that the social issues are going to destroy the GOP. Then I have some Huckabee people I know in my personal life telling me I’m not far enough to the right and I’m a horrible person for supporting a Mormon. I don’t know if that means Romney has a broad base since both extremes are against him or if it just means he has a lot of enemies, or both.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Giuliani is the only candidate with Clinton-specific artillery, which is what he means by electability, not polling data. All McCain, Thompson and Romney can offer against Hillary are generic REpublican bromides.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:33 am
It means, I think, that he has a lot of enemies, Clarence. There is no so-con movement in favor of Romney because he’s a Mormon from Massachusetts.
Leave it to so-cons to base policy decisions around geography and religion, but hey, I can’t get into the minds of so-cons, so…
PS — I said more socon[s] because in the article, only one new so-con was mentioned. It’s a movement!
October 16th, 2007 at 8:35 am
TLG, I am fiscally conservative also. I don’t think Romney is any less fiscally conservative than Giuliani. In fact, when Bill Clinton used the line item veto during that brief time that it was legal, Giuliani actually badmouthed Clinton for it because some of the pork barrel spending went to New York City. I do have a soft spot for the Bushes, but it is true that he has spent too much money. It is just harder to veto bills when your party controls Congress. I know that’s no excuse, but that is how things are.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:38 am
TLG, you are right. I have gotten just as much heat from conservative Protestants over Romney as I have from you guys. I still believe in the guy, but I realize he may have a lot of enemies and am nervous about that. I don’t know why you lump all social conservatives together though. People are a lot more complicated than that. For example, you automatically assumed that since I’m socially conservative, I should have opposed Harriet Miers. I supported her. I don’t just follow what the crowd does. I also happen to oppose the death penalty and the Patriot Act, so in those cases I am socially liberal. I don’t know why you seem to think all social conservatives are alike.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Cliff,
Don’t you think Clinton has Giuliani specific artillery as well? Don’t you think there are letters from the mayor thanking the Clintons for gun legislation or funding for extra teachers? Its always a two-way street.
As for the topic of the thread, any support Romney receives is calculated and political rather than heartfelt. Huckabee, Thompson and McCain are all more conservative than Romney, but their chances of getting the nomination are less than Romney’s. And these so- called leaders want someone who has the potential to self-fund.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Yeah, I’ll say Bush has spent too much money. He’s been something quite less than a small government conservative. Let’s see his grievances:
*Created the Dept. of Homeland Security
*Enacted No Child Left Behind
*Expanded Medicare to the tune of one trillion dollars
*Refused to close the border
*Called for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage
*Enacted “faith-based” federal giveaways
And…
*Said that the US was “addicted to oil”
*Tried to appoint his lawyer to the Supreme Court — what a hack!
*Failed miserably in communicating the case for partial Social Security privatization
To his credit, he’s fighting that SCHIP “child” health care program, got tax cuts through, and has not backed down on terrorism.
I have no idea what Romney is, by the way. Is he an economic conservative at heart? Who knows? I have no idea what to think of him, but I am utterly flabbergasted — I mean, I just feel demeaned, as a voter — to know that he said that tax pledges were “political gimmickry” in 2002 and now he’s going after Rudy for not signing one. How stupid does he think I am!?
October 16th, 2007 at 8:44 am
“TLG, you are right. I have gotten just as much heat from conservative Protestants over Romney as I have from you guys. I still believe in the guy, but I realize he may have a lot of enemies and am nervous about that. I don’t know why you lump all social conservatives together though. People are a lot more complicated than that. For example, you automatically assumed that since I’m socially conservative, I should have opposed Harriet Miers. I supported her. I don’t just follow what the crowd does. I also happen to oppose the death penalty and the Patriot Act, so in those cases I am socially liberal. I don’t know why you seem to think all social conservatives are alike.”
The Patriot Act is a defense issue and the death penalty is a crime issue, in my book. Social issues are religion, abortion, gay marriage, adoption…
You should have opposed Harriet Miers if you’re against unqualified nominees whose main credential was “George Bush’s lawyer” getting to sit on the Supreme Court. Of all the people he could have chosen, he chose HIS LAWYER, who had NO HISTORY for anyone to go by of strict constructionism. The grassroots rebelled, and we forced Bush to pick someone seriously qualified.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:45 am
That’s what I mean. It had nothing to do with Miers. People like Trent Lott just opposed her because they dislike Bush, so someone who is his lawyer they will also dislike. If you liked Bush you would say it was great that he appointed his own lawyer to the Supreme Court. That is human nature.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:47 am
So do David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Breyer, and John Paul Stevens understand strict constructionism better since they are more well-qualified? That is just elitism.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:50 am
…They were chosen because they were experienced judicial activists, Clarence.
I want someone with a track record of strict constructionism to be appointed by the President. I don’t just simply trust George Bush’s word on it.
And yes, it had plenty to do with Miers. She had no serious track record on which to judge her. It was basically “trust me, guys!”
Bush would have loved to appoint Gonzales to the Supreme Court, I’m sure.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Yes, but look how wrong conservatives have been in the past. They supported David Souter. Whether she had a track record or not, does it take a lot of brains to know that a conservative Southern ex-Democrat from Texas who is close to Bush would be more inclined to support overturning Roe v. Wade than a moderate Yankee like Souter?
October 16th, 2007 at 8:54 am
tlg
“I have no idea what to think of him, but I am utterly flabbergasted — I mean, I just feel demeaned, as a voter — to know that he said that tax pledges were “political gimmickry†in 2002 and now he’s going after Rudy for not signing one. How stupid does he think I am!?”
don’t be so disingenious. you know that is political crap you are saying. i can pulll out a thousand statements about giulani playing the same political game. it is politics, romney is playing potilcs, just like giulian is pretending he supports strict constructionist judges, that he supports guns, that he doesn’t support civil unions, and that he supports the lite item veto after he had oit overturned…….and on and on it goes.
an intelligent person looks at their record and does his best to cut through teh political crap to see what kind of president he thinks he will be. your comment is pure spin.
romney is obviously a fiscal conservative!
October 16th, 2007 at 8:54 am
PabloZed – I agree, but I would still say it makes Giuliani the candidate most able to take on the Clinotns. An election between Romney and Hillary will substantively be the same recitation of old, tired, boring talking points. It might as well be Reagan v. Mondale and every election since, with the balance tipped toward the DEmocrats. Giuliani is the only candidate who can say, I’ve beaten the Clintons before, on substantive issues. That will impress people. An endorsement from the dean of Bob Jones University is not going to impress anyone.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:55 am
TLG – I’m not making this up. I think I provided a quick list of people. Here’s a fuller list of social conservative leaders who support Romney:
Jay Sekulow
James Bopp Jr.
Gary Marx
Mark DeMoss
Camille Solber
Rita Covelle
President, Morality in Media Massachusetts
Richard Guerriero
Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus
Mary Ann Glendon
Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Kristian Mineau
President, Massachusetts Family Institute
Dr. Roberto Miranda
President, COPAHNI Fellowship of Hispanic Pastors of New England
James Morgan
President, Institute for Family Development
Joseph Reilly
President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Thomas A. Shields
Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage
This isn’t a full list… but it’s nothing to sneeze at.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:55 am
I do agree on Gonzales though. I’m glad he didn’t appoint him, and I like Alito too. I just think the right was too hard on Miers. They were elitists for one thing…opposing someone because they weren’t a sitting judge as if all sitting judges are wonderful. Plus I didn’t like the way once one opposed her, they all did, just like a bunch of puppets. Monkey see, monkey do. It was the elitism that irritated me as well as this thing with conservatives where once one takes a position, they all follow in lock step. Democratic party hacks are the same way.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Giuliani can’t win the general election. There are too many right wingers that simply won’t vote for him and he is barely indistguishable from Hillary.
One of you said the Thompson will likely sweep the South. How wrong you are. He is starting to fade in South Carolina and is is proving to be vast dissapointment to everyone. He would be a terrible President because his heart is not in it. He will be another President Taft. The race is now a two man race– Giuliani and Romney. The only other candidate who can make a push and threaten these two now is McCain, and that is a long shot.
If Romney does indeed get the religious endorsements he will win South Carolina. This is how it will play out leading into Super Tuesday:
Guaranteed Romney Victories: Iowa, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Maine
Giuliani will win: Florida (A lot of NY and NJ there)
Toss ups: New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada. All leaning toward Romney.
Finally, it is also telling that Romney is the direct target of attacks from all side. He is obviously the biggest threat to both the “birthright” GOP candidates (McCain and Giuliani) and the Democrats in the General.
http://www.dryflypolitics.com
October 16th, 2007 at 8:57 am
“don’t be so disingenious. you know that is political crap you are saying. i can pulll out a thousand statements about giulani playing the same political game. it is politics, romney is playing potilcs, just like giulian is pretending he supports strict constructionist judges, that he supports guns, that he doesn’t support civil unions, and that he supports the lite item veto after he had oit overturned…….and on and on it goes.
an intelligent person looks at their record and does his best to cut through teh political crap to see what kind of president he thinks he will be. your comment is pure spin.
romney is obviously a fiscal conservative!”
It’s not a political game. Romney needs to tell the truth about what he thinks of pledges — are they gimmickry or are they key to understanding a candidate? In 2002, Romney called tax pledges political gimmickry. Why doesn’t he defend Rudy for not signing it today? Rudy doesn’t do the pledge thing, and I don’t see why he should. He stands on his record. He has nothing to prove.
GIULIANI IS NOT PRETENDING THAT HE DOESN’T SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS. “He” didn’t overturn the line-item veto, either, you fool, the Supreme Court — including strict constructionists — did, because it was unconstitutional.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:58 am
i am laughing so loud right now.
is tlg sayign giuliani has a strong record of strict constructionism!!!!! seriously, do some studying on constituional interpretation, please. he is obviously extrremly weak on this concept!!!!!
jsut becuase ted olson is behind him doesn’t make him a strict constructionist.
seriously, do some reading on his past in appointing jugdes and more importnatlly what kind of ‘constituional interpretational view’ believing the constitution protects the right to abortion requires. let me tell you, it is NOT STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM. just the opposite!!!
it is not just htat he supports abortion. it is the fac that if you believe the constitional protects that right, which he does, then you CANNOT BE A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST!!!!
what about that do you not understand. i understand that you have not gone to law school, but nonetheless, people have pointed it out numerous times here.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:59 am
“Yes, but look how wrong conservatives have been in the past. They supported David Souter. Whether she had a track record or not, does it take a lot of brains to know that a conservative Southern ex-Democrat from Texas who is close to Bush would be more inclined to support overturning Roe v. Wade than a moderate Yankee like Souter?”
Strict constructionism is not code-word for “overturning Roe v. Wade” to me!!!! That is the difference between so-cons and the rest of the Republican Party. Strict constructionism is READING THE CONSTITUTION AS IT IS WRITTEN. It isn’t just a political game for one to give a wink and a nod saying that they’re pro-life.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:59 am
uh, yes he did. the judgse would have never rule don it, if HE DIDN’T BRING IT TO THEM!!!
October 16th, 2007 at 8:59 am
25 — Did you even read what I wrote?
Giuliani has no track record on judges. Neither does Romney. They both chose judges out of a few chosen by committee.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:00 am
“uh, yes he did. the judgse would have never rule don it, if HE DIDN’T BRING IT TO THEM!!!”
Since no one else would have brought it, right? That’s just stupid.
Are you a strict constructionist or not? Don’t you think it should have been overturned?
October 16th, 2007 at 9:00 am
TLG, Seriously, pull out a book on constitutional interpretation. you need to do some reading on teh topic. you obviously do not understand what strict constructionism means. read the constititoin adn see if it strictly says anythign aout abortion in there?
October 16th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Justin — Yeah, and I could pull up a list like that for Rudy with so-cons or strict constructionists. You’d never concede that he was a friend of either group.
And with that, I depart. I’m headed to Philadelphia for a Nightwish concert — woo! 3 1/2 hour drive — exciting! (That’s why I’m home and posting right now.)
October 16th, 2007 at 9:02 am
DUBIOUS — I’M AGAINST ROE V. WADE.
BUT STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM IS ABOUT MORE THAN ABORTION TO EVERYONE BUT SO-CONS.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:02 am
nobody else did, did they.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:03 am
One more thing, all of you criticizing Romney for flip-flopping without condemning anyoneelse are a bunch of hypocrits.
Yes Romney has flipped, but no more than anyone else:
Giuliani: Gun Control, Immigration, the Schiavo case, etc. Oh, and he surrounds himself with corrupt people
Thompson: Abortion, Lobbying, immigration, campaign finance
Romney: Abortion, Tax Pledges.
So please, grow up and find some real dirt on Romney. This and the Mormon thing is all you’ve got. At least he has not been married 4 times, and is not lazy, uninterested, or corrupt. He is the smartest and most capable person in the race, despite his failings.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:05 am
i never said it was. i was making the point that it is impossible and contradictory for giuliani to say i believe abortion is a constitutional right and i believe in teh strict construction of the constitutoin. that is my point. thats it.
“Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, the Court had previously found support for various privacy rights in several provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as in the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights. But instead of relying upon the Bill of Rights or “penumbras, formed by emanations”, as the Court had done in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Roe Court relied on a “right of privacy” that it said was located in the due process clause of the Constitution.”
THIS IS NOT STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Well, you obviously don’t understand strict constructionism either. If you did, you would support overturning Roe v. Wade. You don’t. I realize it is about other issues besides that. On other things, you are certainly NOT a strict constructionist. For example, you said that it doesn’t matter that someone at a church says they will stay married till death do us part. It is only a ceremony you say. That is the same line of thinking liberals use with the Constitution. It is a living document. Since you take marital vows figuratively instead of literally, I’m surprised you don’t take the Constitution figuratively also and be a loose constructionist.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Calling Romney (or Bush for that matter) an obvious fiscal conservative is an insult. Romney and Bush increased government spending and expanded bureaucracies. Romney also raised state fees by some measures as much as $500 million. Giuliani is no better. I define all three men as fiscally promiscuous.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:09 am
It’s amazing how bloggers somehow think politics is connected to logic, reason, candidates’ positions, mjustice, acogent argumentation, etc. Politics – especially elections – is about the manipulation of emotions. When Rudy Giuliani says, “I indicted a criminal who was doing arms deals with Iran, and Bill Clinton gave him a prdon,” do you think that’s gonna hit home just a little bit more than “The Family Research Council endorsed me.”?
October 16th, 2007 at 9:11 am
SO if i understand tlg right, strict constructionism does not apply to abortion, but it does apply to other topics. okay, well, tha theory defeats teh purpose of strict constructionism.
not sure if tlg is getting the point here.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:14 am
pablozed, dream on.
romney shrunk governmetn by 350 employees. fired as many as he could.
of course government spending is going to go up in ma, the legislature is full of liberal dems iwth a veto proof majority. romney vetoed over 800 bills, but like 700 of them became law anyway. how can one stop it with a veto proof majority?
fees are services. there is nothgin wrong with charging a fee for a service. private business do it, so can government. income taxes are a whole different story.
look at his record. you ignored his abiltiy to be fiscally discplined in turnign around 150 ompanie and a debt ridden olympics. you are obviously biased. no one can argue that romney is not fiscally conservative seriously.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Name the State Romney can win the Bush lost? I haven’t seen a head to head poll in MA, can Romney beat Clinton in MA?
Will Romney win Ohio? FL?
How can he possibly win?
October 16th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Opinionated…Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and New Hampshire are all states Bush lost that Romney could win. He also 6 points ahead in Nevada, a state Bush only won by 2 against Kerry and 4 against Gore (with Nader getting 2).
October 16th, 2007 at 9:24 am
opinionated
how many southern states do we lose to hillary if rudy is the nominee? can we hold on to what bush won with rudy? you are assuming a lot in that question.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Clarence Claus
I disagree.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Rudy polls much better in the south than Romney.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:30 am
dubious
Which Southern States are lost to Clinton? And if they are, it proves what I wrote in the Gallup poll thread about SoCons who seek martyrdom.
Giuliani may lose. No one else can possibly win. Except maybe, just maybe under perfect circumstances, McCain.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Opinionated,
You’re getting ridiculous in your rants. Rudy has a much better chance of winning down here than Romney. Quit trying to blame socons and label every candidate a socon.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:34 am
another apparent rudy flip flop
this time his health care plan. i hate to do this, but i am tire dof others doing ti to romeny. i would like to demonstarte that this flip flop thing can be done with any candidate. rudy makes it easy though.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152007/news/regionalnews/new_rudy__vs__old_on_kid_healt.htm
October 16th, 2007 at 9:37 am
dubious,
You can dig crap up on just about anybody..
Do I need to post Romney’s Planned Parenthood sheet, where he not only flipped on abortion, but types of abortion and sex education for children?
October 16th, 2007 at 9:39 am
47. Tommy Oliver
Either I don’t understand what you’re writing or you don’t understand what I’m writing.
I believe Giuliani can win. The only one who can win. And I never labeled a single candidate I have written about a SoCon.
I an writing about SoCons only in reference to their desire to destroy certain candidates.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Pablo,
Your facts are wrong. Massachusetts had fewer state employees when Romney left office than it did when he got there. Government spending in the state went up by an average of 2.2%, but since inflation was a little higher than that, REAL spending in the state went down. Fees went up approximate half as much as you indicate, but fees are not taxes–they don’t represent money taken from innocent taxpayers at the point of a gun…taxes are. I get tired of posting this, but the fact is that Massachusetts had a deficit of $3 Billion when Romney took office. They were half way through the fiscal year and had a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. It was the biggest fiscal crisis in the history of the state. Romney balanced the budget without raising taxes, and with a Democrat legislature fighting him hammer and tong along the way. What Mitt accomplished was nothing short of heroic. Calling Romney a fiscal conservative would be a massive understatement. He’s a fiscal wizard.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Back on the topic of the post…
Does Romney really want a Bob Jones University endorsement? Considering the BJU’s stance on interracial dating, which was only changed recently, I wouldn’t be bragging.
Although BJU admitted Asians and other minorities from its inception, it refused to enroll black students until 1971, eight years after the University of South Carolina and Clemson University had been integrated by court order. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had already determined in 1970 that “private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies” were not entitled to federal tax exemption. Late in 1971, BJU filed suit to prevent the IRS from taking its tax exemption, but in 1974, in Bob Jones University v. Simon, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University did not have standing to sue until the IRS actually assessed taxes. Four months later, on May 29, 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit “students of any race,” a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 [1976]), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.[44]
In May 1975, as it prepared to allow unmarried blacks to enroll, BJU adopted more detailed rules prohibiting interracial dating and marriage—threatening expulsion for any student who dated or married interracially, who advocated interracial marriage, who was “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage,” or “who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University’s dating rules and regulations.” [45] In a 2000 interview, the then-president, Bob Jones III, said that interracial dating had been prohibited since 1950s and that the policy had originated in a complaint by parents of a male Asian student who believed that their son had “nearly married” a white girl
October 16th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Giuliani is the only one with the necessary power of emotional explosive firepower to win. Remember the Move On Dot Org dustup – he was the onloy Republican astute enough to jump on it.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:45 am
more on the case…
On January 8, 1982, just before the case was to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, President Ronald Reagan authorized his Treasury and Justice Departments to ask that the BJU case be dropped and that the previous court decisions be vacated. Political pressure quickly brought the Reagan administration to reverse itself and to ask the Court to reinstate the case. Then, in a virtually unprecedented move, the Court invited William T. Coleman, Jr. to argue the government’s position in an amicus curiae brief, thus ensuring that the prosecution’s position would be the one the Court wished to hear. [49] The case was heard on October 12, 1982, and on May 24, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Bob Jones University in Bob Jones University v. United States (461 U.S. 574). The University refused to reverse its interracial dating policy and (with difficulty) paid a million dollars in back taxes. Also, in the year following the Court decision, contributions to the University declined by 13 percent.
In 2000, following a media uproar prompted by the visit of presidential candidate George W. Bush to the University, Bob Jones III abruptly dropped the interracial dating rule, announcing the change on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”[50] Five years later when asked by Newsweek for his view of the rule change, the current president, Stephen Jones, replied, “I’ve never been more proud of my dad than the night he…lifted that policy.”
October 16th, 2007 at 9:46 am
“Does Romney really want a Bob Jones University endorsement?”
It fits a pattern with Romney. He is a political chameleon.
For the nomination, he figures a Bob Jones affiliation may help. In the general it will be tossed aside.
In a Presidency, it will be forgotten as if it never existed.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Romney actually cut over 600 government jobs – out of over 44,000. That’s like deporting Mitt’s Mexican father and claiming it solves the illegal immigration problem. By comparison, William Weld as gov cut 7,700 jobs.
Again, I do not believe Giuliani is any better. Neither man is a true conservative.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:58 am
To post on the actual thread topic: Justin’s list in #21, while being very helpful, is a very partial list of SoCon leaders who have actually endorsed Mitt. There are many others who have not endorsed, but that are clearly more than just sympathetic. I contend that the options of leading SoCons are very limited. Even with all of his flips in the SoCon general direction, Rudy would be lucky if there wasn’t a major SoCon 3rd party formed the day after he won the nomination. McCain has screwed the religious right time and time again, most notably when he decided to destroy the GOP as a dominant political force in this country through the mechanism of “campaign finance reform.” Fred whined that McCain’s campaign finance reform bill wasn’t called McCain/Feingold/Thompson, was pro-choice in the ’90’s, and could care less about things like personal promiscuity and regular church attendance. Nobody else in the field is even remotely viable, politically. Mitt is viable, sincere, wholesome, and has consistently walked the Christian walk throughout his life. He’s the logical choice for devout SoCons rally around. It’s been happening for quite some time, but so far it’s been a stream. Soon, it will be more like a flash flood.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Metro what would this website do without you. These Romney supporters on here are so blind to reality.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Check this out…
BJU policies
Students may not listen to country, jazz, New Age, rock, rap, or contemporary Christian music.
-Contemporary Christian? To quote Great Balls of Fire, “It’s the devil’s music, Jerry Lee!” Personally, I would ban it too, but that’s out of taste.
Each student is provided with a filtered e-mail account. Using unfiltered Internet access via computer, mobile phone, or satellite phone is prohibited for residence hall students.
Residence hall students are forbidden to go to movie theaters or, when visiting local homes, to watch any films with a rating higher than a G rating.
Men may not wear earrings, necklaces, or bracelets. (I’d be expelled on all 3 counts)
Men’s hair must be traditionally styled with a conservative cut. Hair must not be colored, highlighted, shaved, shelved, tangled or spiked. Sideburns may not reach past the lower opening of the ear. No facial hair is permitted; students must be clean shaven. (I’d be expelled with my permanent 5 o’clock shadow and scraggly hair)
The University will not allow anything displaying the logos of Abercrombie & Fitch or its subsidiary Hollister to be “worn, carried, or displayed” on campus even if the logos are covered because these companies have “shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions.”
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University
October 16th, 2007 at 10:02 am
This is a shock. Do the evangelicals want to lose? Don’t they see how Romney matches up with Hillary in the polls?
http://www.political-buzz.com/
October 16th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Strict rules govern student life at BJU. [68] Some of these are based directly on the University’s interpretation of the Bible. For instance, the 2005-06 Day Student Handbook states, “Loyalty to Christ results in separated living. Dishonesty, lewdness, sensual behavior, adultery, homosexuality, sexual perversion of any kind, pornography, illegal use of drugs, and drunkenness–all are clearly condemned by God’s word and prohibited here.” (13) Grounds for immediate dismissal include stealing, immorality (including sexual relations between unmarried students), possession of hard-core pornography, use of alcohol or drugs, and participating in a public demonstration for a cause the University opposes.[69] Similar moral failures are grounds for terminating the employment of faculty and staff. In 1998, a homosexual alumnus was threatened with arrest if he visited the campus. [70]
Good grief. It gets even better…
The three Bob Joneses, especially Bob Jones, Jr., sharply criticized the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, Jones, Jr. once said that Catholicism was “not another Christian denomination. It is a satanic counterfeit, an ecclesiastic tyranny over the souls of men….It is the old harlot of the book of the Revelation—’the Mother of Harlots.’” All popes, Jones asserted, “are demon possessed.” In 2000, then-president Bob Jones III referred, on the University’s web page, to Mormons and Catholics as “cults which call themselves Christian.”
Bob Jones III has argued that the University is not so much anti-Catholic or anti-Mormon as it is opposed to the idea that all men, regardless of religious beliefs, will eventually get to heaven: “Our shame would be in telling people a lie, and thereby letting them go to hell without Christ because we loved their goodwill more than we loved them and their souls…. All religion, including Catholicism, which teaches that salvation is by religious works or church dogma is false. Religion that makes the words of its leader, be he Pope or other, equal with the Word of God is false. Sola Scriptura. From the time of the Reformation onward, it has been understood that there is no commonality between the Bible way, which is justification by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and salvation by works, which the faithful, practicing Catholic embraces.”
Did Ann Coulter go to Bob Jones U.? Thanks for reminding me to refresh my memory about this place. I’d forgotten all this stuff.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:07 am
If conservatives decide to get excited about Romney, it will help alot with turnout in the GE. This isn’t about southern racism but a statement about where politically interested Christians are leaning. No other candidate represents them right now, and Romney does. It could have an enormous impact on the race, and if he wins the Presidency and runs the party as a true conservative, it means the Republican Party could become respectable again. The opposite would be the case if Rudy wins, with conservatives immediately abandoning the party and forming a third party as they have threatened. We are really at a crossroads here.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:08 am
I agree with Tommy: Don’t roll all the SoCons into a single rug in order to beat the daylights out of ‘em. Although I’m not a SoCon, I live in a SoCon state where our political SoCons are all New-Deal Democrats.
But I also wish the SoCons in the Republican Party would acknowledge that a candidate in the general election who focuses primarily on overturning Roe will turn too many potential voters away. And for the primaries, I think other non-SoCons would have to acknowledge that they side with SoCons on many issues of the Culture Wars: there are too many activist leftists in academia who stifle free speech; abortion should not be widely available throughout the whole pregnancy; the Second Amendment is not to be turned into a jocular footnote to the Constitution; activist liberal courts have overreached in trying to interpret atheism as the intent of the founding documents; and so on.
If we don’t play nice, fourteen months from now we’ll all be watching Hillary get sworn at… er, in, with First Laddie Bill volunteering to perform security pat-downs on all female visitors to the White House.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Pablo,
Romney cut as many jobs as he could under the circumstances. A true fiscal conservative would do no less. If the heavily Democrat legislature hadn’t overridden so many of his veto’s, he would have cut back the number of state employees by more than Weld did. BTW, I agree that Weld was a great governor. He’s been an enthusiastic supporter of Mitt’s from day one. Romney left a surplus of more than a billion dollars, which has since been more than spent by the Democrats. Contrast this legacy with the incredible amount of debt that Giuliani bequeathed to New York City and tell me who the true fiscal conservative is!
October 16th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Too bad Weld didn’t run in NY last year. There was word floating around that he was considering it. Then again, I don’t know if Jesus could have beaten Spitzer here in NY. I’m just glad Spitzer’s holier-than-thou routine has been proven to be a sham.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Matthew,
You must have a short attention span. The Rasmussen national primary poll released yesterday shows Mitt running better against Hillary than Rudy does. The notion that Rudy is more electable is nothing but pure conjecture. My conjecture is that Mitt is more electable than Rudy. His resume is more impressive, he’s more articulate, he has a better family and a better wife, he looks better, and he looks more presidential, he has greater financial resources to draw upon, his campaign is more organized, he doesn’t automatically lose the SoCon vote, and he has a better vision for the future of America. He also has less baggage, and this is a partial list.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:36 am
TLG…if you are still around.
As a strict constructionist today, what do you do when the doctrine of stare decisis conflicts with the clear, yet maybe ambiguous language of the Constitution?
October 16th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Dave,
“he has a better family and a better wife”
- talk about pure conjecture! If you want your guy to win I hope he has the good sense to not make such remarks.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Everyone else….
The Republican party is a coalition of various conservatives, if any of you want to achieve your specific goals (fiscal, etc.) then we shouldn’t attempt to bad mouth other types of conservatives. Without the SoCons, the General Election becomes that much tougher to win (yet maybe nt impossible). Same goes for turning away the fiscal conservatives. That is the main reason why I think Romney would be a better candidate than Giuliani. This is the reason why I think Romney is more electable than Rudy.
Polls have changed so much in the last year, and they will change even more in the next year.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Dave: His resume is more impressive,
Many people find it unnaturally impressive and somehow alienating. His flawlessness makes him hard for me to relate to: I’m only human.
he’s more articulate,
Than whom? To me, he seems as freakishly animatronic as articulate.
he has a better family and a better wife, he looks better,
So he’s got the high school “Most Likely to Succeed” contest all stitched up!
and he looks more presidential,
The rest of us mortal will be the ultimate judge of that. This was also the least compelling argument for FDT to enter the race, by the way.
he has greater financial resources to draw upon,
I can just hear Billary’s media department sharpening their knives: Mitt Romney wants to buy the Presidency, and he can do it — because he’s so much richer than you are!
his campaign is more organized,
Not more organized than Billary’s. Are you kidding?
he doesn’t automatically lose the SoCon vote,
I.e., he doesn’t win it automatically, either.
and he has a better vision for the future of America.
Oh, sure. Now pick on Rudy for wearing glasses. Sheesh, talk about grasping for straws…
October 16th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Adam,
There’s not all that much conjecture involved here. Do you know anything about Rudy’s wife? We’re not really talking First Lady material here. Romney’s sons are campaigning for him. They actually are willing to speak to him. Rudy called a televised press conference to inform his wife that he was leaving her for his mistress! A family man he isn’t. Romney has far too much taste and sensitivity to ever make this a campaign issue, but it’s pretty obvious to all and sundry. Personally, I think this is a very big deal from an electability standpoint, so I mentioned it. Note that I haven’t mentioned any salacious details.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:50 am
You see, this is Rudy speaking this morning. This is what I’m talking about:
He also took a swipe at Romney without naming him. Telling the story of how he kicked Yasser Arafat out of a United Nations concert, he said he didn’t consult with lawyers. “I didn’t call for a team of lawyers to tell me, ‘On the one hand, you can throw him out, but on the other hand, you can’t,’” he said.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I wish this conversation (on all threads) would encompass more candidates. Its premature to focus on Romney, Giuliani and Clinton. It is very possible that none of the current frontrunners end up as the nominee. None of these candidates – indeed no candidate – is without flaws. The objective is therefore to determine which flaws are potentially fatal. We happen to know that personal flaws are not fatal, unless they concern mental instability or outright treason. So while I beat Giuliani up about his cross-dressing, it will hurt him in the bible belt but is not fatal.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Dave,
It’s only a big deal for those people that are threatening to bolt the GOP if Rudy is the nominee anyway. Who is Mrs. Giuliani going to have to contrast with? Bill Clinton? Ha! Believe it or not, not everyone cares as much about a candidate’s personal life as you or those like you.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:00 am
MarkG,
I appreciate your post. Perceptions are innately subjective. Mitt’s organization is the best on the GOP side. It’s not as large as Hillary’s, which was largely put together in the ’90’s when Bill was President. She’s been building it ever since, which is precisely why we need to nominate the candidate most capable of building one to match her’s. Your vision comment was tongue-in-cheek, but match Romney’s 50-point plan for America with Rudy’s 12 guiding principles and come to your own conclusions about vision.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Cliff….
I know that many on this blog criticize Romney supporters as being blinded, but are you that dense.
Romney’s lawyer comment was correct in that it was in regards to the constitutionality of Presidential authority under the War Powers Act. However, the MSM and sadly now Rudy want to treat the American people like idiots and mischaracterize Romney’s comments. This is something I would expect from a losing McCain, but Rudy has a lot of substance and should focus on that and his difference from Romney and not have to use this kind of crap!
October 16th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Adam,
Only most of America.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Dave,
Oh yeah? What was Bill Clinton’s approval rating when he left office? 64 percent?
October 16th, 2007 at 11:06 am
I hope people care somewhat about a candidate’s personal life. Their personal lives affect the way they view things and how they make decisions.
Remember with the first Clinton, he sent troops into Europe to cover up his own personal mistakes that occurred in the Oval Office.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:10 am
And all this time I thought we sent troops into Bosnia to prevent genocide. Those cages holding starving muslim men, the graves that were uncovered filled with bodies of women and children, and the shelling of civilian areas were just props.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Adam,
Touche. I’ve never understood why America was willing to overlook the sleazoid factor with the Clintons. I feel like I’m part of Isaiah’s remnant. Sleaze IS an electability issue though. Your point is that the extent to which it is is debatable. Point taken.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:28 am
#60 Do the evangelicals want to lose? Don’t they see how Romney matches up with Hillary in the polls?
I would consider myself an evangelical and I do not like Romney at all.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:41 am
ifligo,
don’t ask tlg anythign about constitutional interpretation. he hasn’t a clue about it.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Hey Pablo….
If that was true, why haven’t we sent troops into Darfur and other regions where people are being slaughtered?
October 16th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
http://carolliebau.blogspot.com/2004/11/this-piece-in-new-york-times-seems-to.html
read this tlg. not from any big player, but it sheds light in what it means to be a strict constructionist, which you and rudy clearly are not but seem to think you are.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
KB,
Most evangelicals want to win, that is why they are gravitating to Mitt. The few that don’t want to win are lining up behind Huckabee and Brownback. They CAN’T win with Rudy, because he doesn’t represent them. At best, Rudy is the lesser of evils, from an Evangelical standpoint. At worst, he’s evil.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
some evangelicals like rudy. his perception of ‘tough guy’ makes them like himd espite his other problems. i think they here his pledges and tehw ay he is talking NOW as opposed to his record that they are largely unaware of and think, he i’ll go with this guy.
don’t underestimate the level of ignorance among the avrage american voter. That explains fred’s high polling numbers wonderfully.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Fortunately, dubious, the ignorant that show up in poll numbers don’t actually vote as much as the informed do. I think this is what keeps our system working as well as it does, and another reason why Romney will win.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
ilfigo,
Bosnia doesn’t have oil; Sudan does. You can’t bomb Khartoum without killing a bunch of Chinese. While we’re blowing our load and treasury in Iraq, China is essentially taking over Africa. They are everywhere. For example, China is building an airport and a highway system in Angola because they have invested in Angolan oil. And they are also sending thousands of Africans to China for training. But the bottom line is, the solution to Bosnia (and it has worked) would be inefficacious in Darfur.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Mark G #70 -
I have a feeling that you are a democrat, but I agree with your points about Romney – - they are pretty spot-on!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I have a feeling that you are a democrat
I register Dem a lot here for primaries because there aren’t enough Republicans on the ballot to cover all elected offices. Our state and local elections are essentially settled after the Democratic primary.
I’m a Republican-inclined independent, for what it’s worth. I’m skeptical of politicians and dislike political parties, although I see them as a necessary evil. I just happen to dislike the Democrats a lot more than the Republicans. I’m concerned about what will happen if we get one-party Democratic rule over the country. One-party rule just encourages corruption, nepotism, and paternalism, just like we’ve had here in WV for over 70 years. I like to tell local Democrats that we’ve been run by their party for longer than the Communists have run Cuba!
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:24 am
[...] ideally, from far extreme of the religious right showing that anyone could endorse Romney (check – Chancellor and Dean of Bob [...]
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 am
[...] ideally, from far extreme of the religious right showing that anyone could endorse Romney (check – Chancellor and Dean of Bob [...]