- Rudy Giuliani 22% (29%)
- Mike Huckabee 21% (4%)
- Mitt Romney 16%(12%)
- Fred Thompson 7% (21%)
- John McCain 7% (18%)
266 Registered Republican voters surveyed between 12/5 and 12/9. Margin of error +/- 6%. Numbers in parentheses are from CBS News Poll from 10/18.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Its tightening.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
It’s chaos. That benefits Rudy.
First it was gonna be McCain. Then Fred was the anti-Rudy. Then Mitt. Now Huck. Desperate flailing, is how Team Rudy will characterize it — in a positive way.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
This poll and the the last one seem to show that the race is between Rudy, Mitt, and Huck. It looks the supporters of the others (notably McCain and Thompson) are switching to one of the big three.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
wow fred – from 21% to 7%, way to nosedive
December 10th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
That’s fairly pathetic. Back in February Rudyists were telling us Rudy would be at 50% with a 30% lead by now.
Instead he has almost no lead and fewer than 1/5 of Republicans support him.
Given his months as front runner it’s amazing that’s the best he could do with all of his money, 911 status and organization.
What a pathetic candidate. I doubt he could even give Hillary a decent fight as weak of a campaigner as he’s been.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
266 registered Reps for a national poll with MOE=6; all numbers are suspect,but useful to confirm a trend.
Romney stuck at 13 in Rasmussen for 3 days after the speech, so two polls showing him at 16 today may be noise.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Metro,
Just curious, what doesn’t benefit Rudy? That seems to be your answer to everything.
Huckabee is ahead in SC what does this mean? Ctrl V= That benefits Rudy.
Romney has a huge lead in NH what does that mean? Ctrl V= That benefits Rudy.
Rudy cheated on his second and charged the taxpayers of NY for it, what does that mean? Ctrl V= That benefits Rudy.
Merry Christmas Metro.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
#7 second (wife)
December 10th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
It does look like the speech has given Romney a bit of a jumpstart. Second poll to show it today. It looks like it was a good move on Mitt’s part. He showed a lot of courage even when everyone on his team told him not to di it. He took charge and gave a phenomenal speech. NOw the reaping begins.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
econ grad stud, you’re such an *ss. You know very well it’s religionists preventing Rudy and not poor campaigning. What the experts are shocked by is that Rudy’s still leading. He was never supposed to run, never supposed to lead, never supposed to lead past spring…. etc.
Erik, you must be new here. I think there are some things that are very bad for Rudy. Like Mitt winning IA, since now that Huck’s fixed the expectations game Mitt screwed up, it would allow Mitt to possibly run the table before FL. That is very bad for Rudy. McCain being in the race is very bad for Rudy. McCain winning NH+MI would be bad for Rudy.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Colin James #6 – way to spin this in your guy’s favor. Ignore Rudy’s falling numbers and claim Mitt’s rise is an aberration. Typical Rudyite behavior since your guy’s plan is obviously failing.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Bottom line:
Intrade
Rudy 40.1 (down from ~45)
Mitt 18.6 (down from ~31)
Huck 17.5 (down from ~20)
JMac 9 (up from ~5)
Fred 5 (long slide down from ~35)
Millions of dollars riding on it. Yeah, Rudy’s dead all right. /sarcasm
December 10th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Huck continues to be a tool for team Romney. Rudy falls big time, and now Mitt is within the margin or error.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I don’t try to discount the polls as Colin is. I try to defend my strategy for Rudy factoring in every poll as plausible.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Greg, turn on a brain cell. How is Huck a tool for team Romney, when Mitt is going AFTER Huck?
Intelligent handicappers, PLEASE.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
These numbers are virtually identical to the CNN poll, and they were taken over almost the exact same time frame. Rudy has stalled out, but what is even better is that it appears that Huck has hit his ceiling….at least for the time being. Also, this is confirmation that The Speech has done Mitt some good. I’m cautiously optimistic about upcoming Iowa polls. With Fred and McCain at 7% each, and both falling dramatically, it’s a 3-man race. The critical question is: when the race narrows to 2 men, who will they be?
December 10th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Metro, how do “religionists”, whatever they are, keep Rudy at 22%. Are 78% of Republicans “religionists”?
Perhaps you mean they see Rudy’s inability to use his front runner status to campaign and figure one of the other candidates may actually have the energy, charisma, and campaign organization to win an election.
So far Rudy’s organization has just been pathetic.
If Rudy replicated his pitifully executed primary run in the general we’d be looking at a Hillary (or Obama) landslide.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Looks like the only unstable candidate in the field at this point is Huckabee (MAYBE Thompson), and I think Hucks’s stabilizing very quickly. My guess ist that this is about how the national picture will look heading into Iowa, and then the picture is going to have to be determined by how things shake out in IA and NH.
Only real question mark is Huck. I think his support has hit a ceiling for now, which means he can do 2 things: stay where he is or drop like a rock. If he maintains or grow his current support coming out of NH, Huck has a decent shot at becoming the nominee. If not, I’m picking Rudy. I think that Romney has backed himself into the position of having to win BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire to be competitive, and that is proving to be harder for him than I thought it would. I really don’t see a likely path for either McCain or Thompson.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Metro,
Given that anytime Romney is in the lead in early state polls you call it screwing up the expectations game, what do you think of Rudy winning national polls for a full year only to be overtaken (nationally) at the very end by someone who is expected to beat him in the early primary states too?
People gravitate to Huckabee because of his experience dealing with terrorism, his gravitas, and his electoral appeal, whereas they recognize that Rudy’s an unelectable phoney. :rolls eyes:
December 10th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
With t he exception of Giuliani all the candidates have played all their cards.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Why does Romney have to win both Iowa and New hampshire. Nobody has ever done that before. It appears that Mitt is on the rise nationally, so getting both Iowa and New Hampshire is not a necessity.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
You’re right, Cliff. We’ve still got the full Kerik investigation ahead of us.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
econ grad stud, see my post near the top of the previous thread. Team Rudy’s been doing nothing recently. For several reasons I outlined, he wants to be the underdog in the early states.
murphy, um, I think you’re familiar with the concept… early states matter more than later ones.
Cliff, #20, BINGO!
December 10th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Cliff, Giuliani has been beating his “as Mayor of New York” shtick since August. He’s been beating the 9-11 drum all year long.
I’m curious what does he have left?
Is he going to talk about his military service or his business experience?
December 10th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
we’ve got a lot more dirt ahead of us. take it to the bank…
December 10th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Wasn’t it Romney that said you have to have at least 20 million to even be considered in the
running. Also, if Huckabee is a tool for Romney then why are they trying so hard to beat him in Iowa and running negative ads against him. Seems to me that Romney is scared, and he should be since he has been saying all along that he had to Iowa and that he was going to. I think he also said he was going to win SC. Seems to me the Romney plan is not working and you can twist it all you want to on this site, but the campaign from the beginning has been clear and now they are seeing things change and not in a good way for them.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
He does have some recent business experience as a consultant. I thik he has some middle eastern connections as a result.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
What does he have left? Letting voters know about the fierce and successful battles he led in NYC against the liberal establishments. He WON them. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Gonna make a killer set of ads.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Metro#10
Good for you recognizing that a Mitt win in Iowa will be very hard for Rudy to recover from. I fully agree. If he wins there, it is going to be nigh impossible for anyone to stop him. Thank-you Mike Huckabee.
I find it somewhat amusing to see Romney-ites panicking and Huck-backers measuring the Oval Office for drapes on the basis of the latest polls. The hard reality is four weeks is an eternity in politics. Four weeks ago, Romney had double digit leads in Iowa, Giuliani had solid leads in the the national polls, and Huckabee was barely a blip.
The next two months will be very entertaining. As I have said before, grab some popcorn, pull up a chair, and enjoy the show.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Greg, way to ignore #15.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
“People gravitate to Huckabee because of his experience dealing with terrorism”
Did I miss something there? Because I don’t recall any recent terrorist attacks in Arkansas and Huckabee has run one of the most domestic issues-centered campaigns in the entire GOP field
December 10th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Ah Metro. It’s always, “just wait until Rudy starts campaigning” with you. If you were a Fred Thompson supporter, I would understand, but Rudy?!?
December 10th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
As somebody very close to the Giuliani campaign, I wanted to let you know that the Mayor is very comfortable withbhis perception as a man of strnegth. He does not plan any media blitzes because he feels it would take away from who he really is. He is confident that the American people already know who he is, and his resources can be better used from here on out.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I think he was being a little facetious, Palin.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Interesting John. How close are you to his campaign?
December 10th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
marK, hasn’t the last couple weeks taught you that early state voters have not finalized their choices? If you didn’t believe the polls we’ve posted a dozen times about how over half of early state voters don’t decide until the last week?
Why burn up money at a time when people aren’t making up their minds? Why set yourself up to fail expectations when you can set yourself up to exceed them?
December 10th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
This race is preparing to turn over… don’t get too secure in any position
December 10th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
See? #33 is how you play the expectations game.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
i believe in intrade’s power to accurately predict events in the long term, but they do seem to be slower to pick up what is happening on the ground. i think we will see intrade tighten soon enough to something like rudy= 33, huck 24, romney 25, to represent the now tightened state of this race.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
joe c, actually, it’s the reverse… Intrade is very quick to react to new info… it’s very accurate in the long-term for single elections with 2 candidates… but with multiple candidates in a series of elections, anything can happen.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Metro #36,
You’re right. It’s far better to sit back and do nothing while your poll numbers circle the drain. Oops. Except Rudy HAS been actively campaigning in NH. Oh well.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Guys,
Let’s just all admit that it is a wide-open race. A month ago it was just Rudy and Mitt, but now Huck is well within the picture. Even McCain and Thompson are not out of it.
Let’s enjoy the ride.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Metro, how do “religionistsâ€, whatever they are, keep Rudy at 22%. Are 78% of Republicans “religionistsâ€? -egs
This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard all day. 22% support does not mean 78% opposition.
Rudy still has the highest favorable rating of any GOP candidate, and the vast majority of Republicans would be satisfied with him as the nominee, again, more so than any other candidate.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
“22% does not mean 78% opposition,” indeed, which is what you see when Rudy is polled in a 2-man race against one of the other Republicans. Or first+second choices combined.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Hello, all- (McCain-site publisher)-
Obviously, these numbers are pretty bad for McCain, any way you slice them. The only solace is that the CNN numbers on the post below are more respectable.
I’m a little puzzled as to why CBS/NYT would even bother to poll with a sample that low and a MOE of +/- 7% (!?!) If you’re trying to figure out who’s in first, in a five-way race, that’s not really of much value…
Thoughts?
December 10th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
TLG, reading comprehension. This “?” is called a question mark.
A front runner for all year is at 22% support. No prior Republican front runner has squandered that advantage as Rudy has.
If Rudy has the highest favorables that’s even worse. He’s generally liked and people still won’t support him.
That’s just pathetic.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
#45 That was my thought too. Maybe its budget cuts to pay writers.
I heard today that there is really only a week and half before ads shut down for the holidays. That’s not a lot of time to change the dynamics.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
“While Romney’s support showed only modest gains in the poll compared to October, it appears he has been successful in persuading voters they could support a Mormon candidate for president – 52 percent of GOP primary voters said most people they knew would vote for a Mormon, up from 36 percent in June.
Interestingly, large numbers of GOP voters (45 percent) and all voters (55 percent) still don’t know Romney is Mormon.”
First off that’s a big jump on how many people would vote for a Mormon but even more surprisingly–45% of GOP voters don’t know he’s Mormon!?
If that’st he case I can see why so Huck has jumped in the polls–nobody knows anything about him except their preacher likes him!
December 10th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Oh, I wouldn’t worry too much, #45. There is still plenty of time for McCain to mount a comeback. Unfortunately, he has spent the last six years sticking his thumb in the eye of the base. That tends to make a comeback a bit problematic.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
EGS. Your post is a little silly. It’s like saying, “well such and such scientist cured one type of cancer, but he didn’t cure them all, what a bad scientist!”. Rudy’s inability to dominate at this stage doesn’t mean he’s done badly. On the contrary he’s defied expectations and has the highest chance of winning the nomination.
He’s also a little lucky. His two main competitors at this stage: Mitt and Huck, don’t really take away from his base (defense conservatives and social moderates).
December 10th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
ECG#46“A front runner for all year is at 22% support. No prior Republican front runner has squandered that advantage as Rudy has.”
One. John McCain. He had a huge lead all last year.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
marK, that is an easily disproven myth:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
December 10th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
TLG, reading comprehension. This “?†is called a question mark. A front runner for all year is at 22% support. No prior Republican front runner has squandered that advantage as Rudy has. If Rudy has the highest favorables that’s even worse. He’s generally liked and people still won’t support him. That’s just pathetic.
The “?” — the question mark — came after a rhetorical question, alright?
This is a field unlike any we’ve ever seen, and you know as well as I do that Rudy’s stances on gun control and abortion have hurt him. It’s amazing that he’s survived it, given that it’s all the media has talked about for months (“Despite Giuliani’s pro-choice position, he hangs onto his lead…”). Plus Kerik and this new thing with his mistress. If the economy and the War on Terror had been talked about more, Rudy would be running away with this thing.
People like you successfully shifted the dialogue to social issues and immigration. And yet Rudy is still #1 nationally.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
What myth are you talking about?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
marK: the one from the previous comment: that McCain had a huge lead all last year. He never lead Rudy in the averages.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Primary MegaTrends:
1) Rudy is falling fast. This has been confirmed in every poll that’s come out recently.
2) Fred is down to 7% and is no longer a player in ANY early state.
3) McCain is also down to 7%, but is still a potential player in New Hampshire.
4) Huck is the Quantum Enigma. He seems to have leveled off in Iowa, but whether he has leveled off anywhere else is undetermined.
5) Romney is about where he was a month ago, having since dropped and then come back up.
What we can deduce from this is that Huck and Mitt are the dominant early state players, but if they trade early wins and this becomes a 2-man race, it will suck all the oxygen out of the proceeding and Rudy’s fall will continue unabated. If Romney wins Iowa, he will run the table though, because he will get the momentum we’ve been speculating about lo these many months.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Interesting. This site must not use the poll I was following last year. It wasn’t until just around October/November 2006 that Rudy went in front to stay.
But since I cannot seem to find a reference for that, I will concede you point and fault my memory.
Interesting site. Thanks for the link.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
McCain led on occasional polls… same with early this year… but Rudy always led the average.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Metro – you’re delusional about the “great news for Rudy” in these polls, and his “secret strategy” to perfectly time a Christmas ad buy – but I do admire your spunk. Every candidate should have a backer like you! (seriously, not sarcastic)
That said, go Mitt!
December 10th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
On #56. The thing is early state victories do provide momentum, but not randomely.
I disagree with this idea that Huck/Mitt sweeping the pre-FL states would make Rudy irrelevant.
In other words, Huck winning Iowa isn’t going to make some pro-choice, pro GAY, anti-tax, pro-torture Republican New York suddenly go “Yea, Huckabee!”. Who gets the social moderates and defense conversatives in a Huck/Mitt race?
On the other hand, a Huck / McCain race would be much trickier for Rudy to manage and he might dissapear under that scenario. He’d have to emphasize economic issues which in my opinion don’t sell as well as social or defense issues. Even TLG (a Rudy supporter) has conceded that economic conservatives rank behind socons and defense cons.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I am curious to see if Metro will have the cajones to step up and post on this site ever again if Rudy loses. There will be some major crow eating, and I just hope someone cares enough to post front page all of the Metro classic myopic posts.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Chris, I do not think these are GREAT polls for Rudy. I think these are manageable polls for Rudy.
Ajay, I don’t believe TLG conceded that, and it’s not true. The GOP has been 90% EconCon and 65% SoCon. About the same as Reagan’s rhetoric.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Jared, the myopic posts have come from Rombots. There’s a treasure trove of them.
I post things I think are bad for my candidate. I have today. I’ve said where I disagree with him and where he’s made mistakes.
Rombots virtually never do. You guys told us Iowa was LOCKED UP. IN THE BAG. etc.
What hubris!
December 10th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Rudy Giuliani 22% (29%)
Mike Huckabee 21% (4%)
Mitt Romney 16%(12%)
It appears it’s a 3 man race. Rudy’s the fiscal conservative/social liberal, Mike is the fiscal liber/social conservative, Mitt’s the fiscal/social conservative. If Rudy fails, where are his fiscal conservative supporters going to turn to stop Huckabee. If Huckabee begins to fail, where are his social conservative supporters going to turn to stop Rudy?
Point is, in the long term Mitt’s well positioned, Mike and Rudy aren’t.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
bjalder26, Rudy’s already demonstrated a ceiling of 60% and above in 2-man polling and 1st+2nd choice combined polling.
Nobody else has. I believe Huck and Mitt have ceilings under 50% each, due to major negatives. That’s why I welcome a 2-man race.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
#63 – I challenge you to find such a post from me. A RomBot I am not. A Romney supporter, definitely. The question still stands, will you show up if/when Rudy loses??
December 10th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
More bad news for Huck.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7302.html
December 10th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
P.S. to #63, this site is littered with statements like this one:
cwpete, August 23rd, “IA is already in the bag for Romney”
#25 at http://race42008.com/2007/08/22/more-on-the-revised-primary-calendar/
December 10th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I’m starting to believe Huck has a real chance at this. Rudy’s still my preference, but some of the national security issues have dropped from the front-page headlines. And that would seem to favor candidates with popular appeal like Huck and Obama.
As a Rudy fan, I have to say I wish he’d get moving! Other than how he handled the MoveOn triple-whammy he hasn’t really achieved much by way of widespread positive free media attention. How does he expect to persuade and make the sale when Huck and Oprah Obama tickle the everyone’s fancy?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Metro. The GOP is not 90% EconCon. 90% might be pro tax cut but not economic conservative.
How do you think Bush got elected in 2000 while advocating additional spending in education and health care? How do you think Huckabee is doing so well despite his populist rhetoric and record? The main threat to Huckabee is not economic issues, but immigration and defense. And the main reason Rudy is doing well is not due to tax-and-spend economic issues, but rather his “tough-on-terror” reputation combined with his NYC record of cleaning up the city and cutting crime. I’m not saying economic issues are irrelevant but that defense and social issues rank of higher importance.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Its absurd to say that Huckabee, leading in IA and SC and second nationally, is not well positioned. I never knew until I came here that conservatives smoked crack.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
So we have two moving up, the rest moving down. looks more and more like a romney huck race. wierd.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Jared, you didn’t show up to this site until after Huck’s rise in IA, so who knows what you were saying elsewhere.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Dave#56,
Yes, even Metro concedes that if Mitt manages to take back Iowa, Rudy will find Mitt’s momentum extremely hard to stop. Hence his very spirited “Go Huckabee!” comments.
I can’t really blame him, can you?
This make Iowa an absolute must win for Huck and Fred. Neither of them have a chance in New Hampshire at the moment. With Huckabee way out in front in Iowa, a Mitt win will be all the more dramatic.
Rudy absolutely has to have someone other than Mitt win Iowa. At this moment in time, if Mitt wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he stands a good chance of running the table before Super-Tuesday. With Rudy falling in the national polls, his has zero margin for error if Mitt wins Iowa.
McCain might win New Hampshire, but I just don’t see Fred winning anywhere.
But, there is still plenty of time for everything to get all tossed up. So enjoy the show, folks.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
#73 – Wrong again. I was on the site since July/August timeframe. Hopefully you are equally as wrong on Rudy winning.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I am not sure any republican, or for that matter any democrat, can duplicate the media extravaganza of Oprahpalooza. I have only seen that type of positive media coverage in the general campaign.
I think the only thing that could do it is if Cheney resigns and Bush chooses a new VP.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Metro,
The whole point is, what do you see happening that suggests Rudy will be one of the 2 men?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Ajay, I count tax-cutting as economic conservative, speaking in general terms. I also said “has been” because it appears it was a fatal mistake for Rove to invite Evangelicals into the GOP without regard to any interest in limited government or economic conservatism.
I wouldn’t try too hard to convince use the GOP is more about social issues than economic conservatism, or a big chuck of what you need to reach 51% in the polls would walk out the damned door, leaving the party to wither and die.
It’s also ludicrous to say cultural issues are of higher importance than economic/regulatory ones, when most of what the President deals with are the latter, and once in a blue moon deals with a cultural issue, and even then, mostly it’s judges.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Dave, being the frontrunner with a huge wad of cash and high favorables and the delegate math working in his favor with winner-take-all states, among other things.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Metro – you misunderstand me. I’m saying what GOP primary voters care about. I personally don’t give a crap about social issues and agree with your personal sentiments about why economic issues are more important then social issues.
And tax-cutting by itself does not make one an economic conservative. Let’s not fall for that trick again (the first we fell for it being in 2000).
December 10th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Jared, no, if you Google this:
jared site:race42008.com
And examine the dates, you’ll find you showed up on Nov 2. And you made a post that day saying you were new to this site.
Are you Rombots all liars? How do you reconcile that with your religion?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Speech = 4 to 5 points for Romney?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Metro,
I have consistently posted both the positive and negative of not only my guy (Romney) but other candidates as well. I have no problem admitting that Huck poses a SERIOUS threat to Romney winning not only IA, but the nomination at all. Seems as though you have a problem admitting that Huck is a threat to Rudy. You only seem to think that Huck’s momentum stops at Rudy’s doorstep. The numbers should concern the crap out of you anher Rudy supporters, just as they do me and other Mitt supporters. If Huck’s popularity keeps rising, and Rudy doesn’t win a state until the Florida votes, even you, diehard of all diehards, should admit this is at the least troubling. But yet you seem to refuse to do that. I pose the question again, will you have the guts to show up on this site if/when Rudy loses this thing and admit how wrong you were (if that happens). I will gladly admit I was wrong, can you sat the same?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
“Rudy’s already demonstrated a ceiling of 60% and above in 2-man polling and 1st+2nd choice combined polling.”
All that Rudy’s demonstrated is that a lot of his “support” is soft support that will move to the flavor of the month.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Jared, I will certainly make a post if Rudy loses.
Huck is a minor threat to Rudy, but a major threat to Romney. I don’t think the Intrade numbers are that far off.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
#81 – Wrong. I have been here long before then, new to posting maybe, but reading your crap since July/August. I said I was “on this site since July/August timeframe”
December 10th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
bjalder26, a chuck of polling respondants are simply going to regurgitate whatever name has been on the news most.
My point stands about 60%+ ceilings being proven for Rudy and for nobody else.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I have not seen any recent tabs of cash on hand. That would be an interesting update. Also, other than McCain, is any one else on public finance?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Jared, well if you were reading and not posting, then how would we know what you said about Mitt having Iowa locked up before Huck’s rise in November? D’oh!
December 10th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
P.S. to #89, that’s just another example of Rombot context-switching. Always intellectually sleazy tactics.
I can see why a good guy like Matt Miller didn’t want to be associated with you.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Metro,
Surely you can’t blame Romney supporters for loving it as they saw their man rack up huge early leads in Iowa and New Hampshire. Just as I can’t really blame you for crowing all those months that Rudy didn’t have to worry about the early states because he had Florida, maybe South Carolina, and all the Super-Tuesday states wrapped up. Hey, we even had our own version of, “Just wait until Rudy starts campaigning”. In our case, we said, “Wherever Mitt campaigns, people like him.”
So shall we just call it even, laugh at our mutual eggs on our faces, and move on?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Metro,
I guess after 2 months of reading your Rudy hype, I had to step up as a voice of reason and counter your anti-Romney rants with some reason and logic. Quick to characterize everyone as a liar when you know half the story. The difference between you and I, is that when I disagree with you, I argue your logic, when you disagree with me (and others) you attack their character/integrity. You know NOTHING about me, or the type of person I am, and to call me a liar is ridiculous.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
marK, so far, I haven’t been really wrong about anything. If it happens, I’ll acknowledge some egg.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Jared, this thread PROVES you are a liar, and the objective reader can see it.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Metro,
Character assassination on Romney aren’t enough, so you need to start attacking the character of his supporters?? You are pathetic. Your holier than thou attitude, and the “I know all politics” approach to things makes you look like ridiculous. And you would be “objective” Whatever. You are the LEAST objective person on this site.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Jared says: “I challenge you to find such a post from me.”
I say: “Jared, you didn’t show up to this site until after Huck’s rise in IA, so who knows what you were saying elsewhere.”
Jared says: “Wrong again. I was on the site since July/August timeframe.”
I prove in #81 you did not write until Nov 2.
Jared says he was reading but not posting before then.
* * *
WE ALL KNOW THE RELEVANT CONTEXT WAS POSTING, since the issue involved was the words Jared has written here.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“I haven’t been really wrong about anything”
Easy to say when you have this, “My candidate is waiting until the right time to UNLEASH the beast” approach. You are pathetic. I sure do hope your guy gets blown away to see you eat those words.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
There is no character assassination when the evidence is all right here, and I’m just pointing to it.
Not only are you a liar, but you cannot admit you made a mistake and/or apologize.
Just as Greg would not apologize after IMPERSONATING me and then lying about it to get un-banned, after I provided proof. And I was generous enough to email Kavon I forgave Greg.
I guess the moral is, if you guys go to Church on Sunday, then you can get away with anything the rest of the week.
Even as I slam Mitt Romney, I maintain my intellectual honesty on this site.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I’m a strong Romney supporter, but I sure as heck don’t see Huckabee as a tool for us. If anything, he still serves as the way for Giuliani to sneak in there by continuing to split the conservative social base as well as other voters that don’t want Rudy for other reasons. I would be tickled to death to see Huck fall flat on his lying face, and stay there. Why don’t we all try to keep our appraisals honest, as Metro seems more inclined to do now than in some of his other days.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
No, everything I say does not rely on a future ad blitz my Rudy. I’ve handicapped other candidates in the race, at various phases in the race. You can Google my comments and predictions. Anyone who’s been around for a long time knows my analysis is generally proven accurate.
I do have a special hate for Mitt Romney, though.
I managed not to let that lose any money on him at Intrade though.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Thanks, Bob. You and Greg should have a discussion about whether Huck is hurting Mitt or Rudy more. The answer is obvious to 95% of us.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Metro/Jared: I think you guys just had a misunderstanding.
Jared, metro’s point was that he couldn’t find a quote from you saying Romney had Iowa locked up because you didn’t start posting till after Huckabee rose in Iowa.
Metro, you explicitly declared that Jared didn’t show up on the site until the Huck boom. When Jared said he started reading the site in July, you accidentally thought in your mind “reading = posting” and called him a liar upon finding evidence he hadn’t posted until November. Of course, he was offended as most people would be.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
TLG – I posted this in the comments of the “‘Negative’ Ad” post. I wanted to make sure you saw it cuz I wasn’t sure if you went back to old posts or not:
Is there a full moon, tonight? I find myself in 100% agreement with TLG.
TLG – if you read this I take back my “not using your brain†comment from over the weekend. Obviously, I must have been having a very very bad day. Your analysis and objectivity is to be commended, especially as you are a very outspoke Rudy guy.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Ajay, if you read #96, you know that it’s not a misinterpretation.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
What I find interesting is that I don’t find intellectual dishonesty from Fred supporters, McCain supporters (excluding sampo), Rudy supporters, and undecideds like Matt Miller.
All the intellectual dishonesty on this site comes from Mitt and Huck supporters. So I’m not very generous with them when it comes to it.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
103 — Mhm. I now can name at least four instances in which I’ve defended Romney over the past couple of weeks. That’s why I was irritated: because I’ve been as objective as I possibly can.
Good of you to acknowledge that. Thank you.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Metro,
“I can see why a good guy like Matt Miller didn’t want to be associated with you.”
Did we have some sort of dispute? I really don’t remember saying I didn’t “want to be associated” with anyone, and I can’t remember anything in particular Jared has had to say.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Metro,
I am not a liar, and I can easily say I was wrong if/when I am. The point isn’t whether or not I started posting to this site before or after Huck’s rise. Re-Google my posts and you will see a level headed approach to this race. I quote YOU, “Jared, wow, you are far more objective than most Rombots on this site!” So to discount my opinion because I started posting in November is silly. The fact is, Huck is a bigger threat to Rudy than you care to admit. Romney has risen nationally since “The Speech”. And we are all still waiting for Rudy to unleash his ad blitz. Do you have a date for that by the way? Voting in Iowa starts 1/3/08 in case the Rudy camp didn’t get that marked in the calendar.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Matt, I meant the Rombots in general, since they so regularly exhibit intellectual dishonesty, something you never do.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
TLG – you’re (not your) welcome. I can understand your irritation. I think even that day I had a hard time going back to find what he had said that caused me to make that comment but was having a shitty day so I didn’t back it up or even follow up.
Once again – my apologies.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
As an aside: nobody has made a post about it but apparently McCain attacked Romney (through a press release) for attacking Huckabee in an ad.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
#104 – I have visited this site since July/August, hence the term, “on the site”. I posted for the first time 11/2. Re-read post #108, and please don’t call me a liar again. My integrity is important to me, and I will defend it regardless f who you are.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Feltcher #76: I think I’m about on the same page.
As far as the Romney supporters go, Rett’s deleted post inspired me to spend some hours looking through LDS Church stuff on the web — the unofficial, ex-Mormon stuff. Do you folks think that won’t make for a major, non-stop media blitz by the general election at the latest?!
If you’re an LDSer supporting Romney, you’d better start praying for the sake of your religion that he fails before all the documentaries, anonymous drop mailings, and whispering campaigns against “temple-ready” Mormons/TBMs hit! That kind of stuff goes so far beyond weird as to disqualify a candidate who has been a part of the higher LDS echelons. It escapes me how anyone could believe that kinda stuff. And I’d certainly disqualify anyone from becoming my Commander in Chief who really did!
December 10th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Only 9 real business days until IA votes. Not much time left for Rudy’s ad blitz. I highly doubt anyone will really want to be showing ads during the holidays. If Mitt does it, then so be it, but I wouldn’t recommend it. I think political ads will be shutting down around the 23rd. There might be a little bit of time during the last week of Dec but all in all ad blitz time is quickly disappearing.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Jared, actually, you were one of the better Romney guys on the site. Until I caught you in a flat-out lie just now.
#96 makes it very clear: The issue was posts you had made to this site. Whether you were lurking before than was absolutely irrelevant to that.
I’m not part of the Rudy campaign, so I can only speculate about a blitz. It’s possible they won’t do it in all the early states. If they wait to FL, I’m on record saying that’s probably not going to work. Maybe they’ve polled enough Floridians about how much they would be impacted by Rudy losing the 5 states beforehand to know it’s actually a firewall. I would be very nervous if they did not have a NH/MI blitz.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Metro,
Would you characterize misleading posts against Romney’s faith as “Intellectual Dishonesty”? I have read many posts that smear the LDS faith from plenty of Fred/McCain/Rudy supporters. Just curious how you view misleading posts about a candidates religion. Do they count as intellectual dishonesty too?
December 10th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Ray, I don’t expect Rudy do to any blitz in IA.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
On #113. As an agnostic, all faiths seem a bit strange to me. But I’ve learned religious people can serve admirably in public life despite believing to me what seem like very strange things. Hopefully, Christians will learn that even though Mormans believe in some very strange things from their vantage point, they can serve admirably in public life.
I do draw a line however on how religious a candidate can be to get my support. Huckabee is definitely past that line.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
It’s not dishonest to say that the electorate believes Mormonism to be ______ (weird… fill in the blank), or that ex-Mormons telling their stories would sink Mitt in October. It’s an electability matter.
It’s dishonest to lie about what constitutes Mormonism, but not to say people’s beliefs (false even) about Mormonism will sabotage a Romney general election candidacy.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
What amazes me, Metro, is how all the lies are only able to be seen by you. Amazing, you have our thanks. Oh, congratulations on 32 of the first 100 posts in this thread. I’m going to have to do some research, but that could be a new record.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
#119 – I agree that it isn’t dishonest to post opinion, but when those opinions are asserted as facts, I would characterize that as intellectually dishonest. I do feel that people’s views about Romney’s faith can and will hurt his Presidentail campaign. I don’t think it is enough to derail him completey, but cause him grief, yes. I have always maintained that if Romney were a Protestant, he would be the consensus pick for POTUS.
markG – The anti-mormon stuff has been around for centuries, and is nothing new to the LDS church. I would challenge you to rather than go through the un-official Ex-mormon stuf, go to the source. You know the OFFICIAL stuff. You wouldn’t go to a Jew to learn about Catholicism. You wouldn’t go to a Baptist to learn about 7th Day Adventists. If you want to learn about Mormons, ask a Mormon, and then use your brain.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Huckabee was just on Hannity and Colmes and in response to questions about his clemency he was squirming like a worm.
I wish someone would put the video of the interview on the front page here.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
MarkG,
Believe me, there is simply nothing that can be said about our religion that hasn’t been said before.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Jared, if the accusations are that Mormonism is a cult, then you don’t want to tell people not to listen to ex-members. That would be consistent with cult-like tactics.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Irish Right, I am not the only one to notice, by any means.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
On #124. This might sound silly but Metro, what’s your definition of a cult? It’s one of those words whose actual definition might not be too harmful but has a bad connotation.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Huckabee was on Fox. I think he has had botox or something because he looks younger. Maybe it was the light.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Metro – do u think Rudy can survive finishing 5th or worse in IA and severely single digits in NH, which COULD happen after he finishes 5th in IA. Where is the ad blitz going to go? – all in FL? Will the subtitle read: “Ignore my previous 6 primary losses – they mean nothing – Florida I am counting on you!”
I’m not trying to pick a fight but I am really having a harder and harder time seeing how Rudy can pull this off. Not that I want him to win but I am trying to be objective and I just don’t see it.
This race is simply out of whack and I just have no idea what is going to happen. I still see that 2/3 of the frontrunners I detest and that scares me a little bit but I still think Mitt will pull this off, especially since Huck has re-set the expectations for IA.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
#124 – I just think that it would make sense to temper the Ex-mormon stuff with some actual Mormon stuff. Most people seem to look for the anti stuff, and neglect getting both sides of the story. Then they assume, (since they learned about what Mormons believe from a non/anti-mormon) that they know what we are about without getting to hear it from one of us. That is all I meant.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Great news for Mitt!
Huck has peaked and Rudy won’t survive the trifecta of Jan losses.
Mitt will be the nominee!
December 10th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Irish, that has never piqued public attention because Mormons are not commonplace. Some of the ex-Mormons say as much. But Romney would serve as a lightening rod for all of that in its most bizarre aspects. I mean, reading some of the ex-Mormon testimonials about their temple initiation rituals sent shivers down my spine. In particular when it comes to the oaths sworn prior to 1990. Good grief!
If only Romney had run as a secular candidate, rather than one who praises the importance of religion over his “secularist” straw man, I could have negated the potential influence of his religion from the outset.
But since he’s refused to address his religion critically, he strikes me as too easily brain washed. What I’ve seen described are some very powerful forces of social pressure, social control, and emotional blackmailing. It’s pretty hair-raising!
December 10th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Ajay, I’m going to refrain from letting this get ugly.
RayinNH, it’s all about the expectations game. If you’re a nobody candidate like Huck was, or Tancredo is, then you HAVE to show big, and the “3 tickets out of Iowa, 2 tickets out of NH” applies to you. Rudy’s a celebrity candidate, so he doesn’t have to show big early. Especially when his campaign has really downplayed expectations in the pre-FL states, and Iowa in particular. It means he has very little to lose in the pre-FL states, but a lot to gain if he surprises in a couple places.
I’m hoping/expecting he does a blitz in NH and MI, and I would expect it to be partially before Xmas and after New Year’s. Remember, over half the voters don’t really decide until the last week. That’s well-documented. It makes sense financially, from the expectations standpoint, and also by not drawing negative ads since he’s not perceived as a threat there. If you look at the history of early contests with split fields, the winner usually comes up from behind.
It’s POSSIBLE they would wait until FL to do a blitz, which scares the heck out of me. But, yes, part of Rudy’s message to FL and CA voters will be “I’ve been counting on you… You moved up your primary with great difficulty in order to exercise your influence, and now’s the time to use it. You can probably determine the nominee this year.” If you’ve studied marketing, the “I am counting on you” approach is a highly effective one. This ties into big-state voters griping for decades about not having influence in national elections, and believe me, we’re more than ready to exercise our newfound influence! I’m quite sure Rudy is tapping into that. And also tapping into early voting. CA starts voting on Jan 5, and over half are expected to vote early.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
On #128. I think it’s because Rudy represents something that neither Mitt nor Huck have approached representing yet. A tough-on-terror social moderate. Romney has tried to be a “tough-on-terror” type but for every “double Guantanamo” statement he’s had a “check with the lawyers” type of statement.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Metro,
Regarding tempering the anti-mormon stuff with some Mormon stuff, I think MarkG proves my point in #131. When you post stuff like, “What I’ve seen described are some very powerful forces of social pressure, social control, and emotional blackmailing. It’s pretty hair-raising!” without him going to get the other viewpoint, it just strikes me a “Intellectually Dishonest”.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
MarkG,
I suspect you’re easily persuaded. Or perhaps you just wanted to be persuaded. Did you think the communist manifesto presented compelling and intriguing ideas the first time you read it? I’m not a Mormon. I can’t recall meeting a Mormon. But, I’ve looked at both ex-Mormon sites, and the LDS site, and I don’t find the claims of the ex-Mormons remotely compelling; or to the extent that I do, they have the ring of ludicrous exaggerations and distortions.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Gotta run, back later.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
#132 – I agree that waiting until FL to start a media blitz would be a scary proposiition for Rudy supporters. He needs to be careful and not pull a Fred. You know, a day late and . . . you get my drift. I wonder though if people in IA and NH really are thinking about voting during the week between Christmas and New Years. I guess as they sit around with family etc., they talk about politics etc. But I am just not sure how many people in those really early states are thinking about politics around that time.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I looked at Intrade charts and found them very revealing:
The highest volume for a single day trading in Huckabee occurred on or about Oct.20 soon after his speech. Look how the smart money anticipated the Huck surge one month in advance.
Rudy was at 40, and Mitt at 30 near Nov.15 and when Huck came above 20 and approached Mitt, Rudy surged to 46 and Mitt drifted down to mid-20’s.
When Huck began the big move to high teens this month, Mitt declined big, but Rudy only came back to 40. The market has priced in Rudy losses in IA,NH and SC. I suspect Rudy’s intrade number will decline only when he shows weakness in Florida polls.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Well, MarkG, I can’t imagine what those rituals and oaths that make you shiver are, but since no practicing Mormon will (or at least should) discuss them with you, we’ll not have an accurate picture. I feel a great deal of sorrow for those who need to justify themselves with actions such as you describe.
Here’s my problem with your comment re: Romney’s strategy. Despite what you and others hold, Romney hasn’t brought his theology into this race. While happy to run with the acknowledgment that he was a practicing Mormon, it has consistently been the media (both old and new) who have made the race one of religion; not only for Mormons but for all Republicans, as well. That, ultimately, works to the detriment of all of us.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
If CA starts voting early shouldn’t he be starting his ad blitz there soon? Also, I don’t know how much more airtime Rudy could possibly buy in NH. He has an ad running basically every commercial break on ESPN, all the major networks, and CNN, FOXNews, MSNBC, etc. I also hear his ads on the radio all the time, especially on the talk stations. I really don’t know what else he plans on blitzing.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Matthew, if you’d like to debate someone else’s religion, then please mention some specifics. Otherwise, this probably isn’t the appropriate forum for us to discuss the beliefs of third parties. For the record, I am stating my own rejection of Mitt’s, not trying to cause others to revisit their beliefs or try to convert me, which they decidedly will not be capable of doing anyway. I’m not prone to the magical.
Irish, I respect your right to believe as you see fit. I assume you will equally respect my right to disagree, whether or not you think I’m fair about it.
And no, it has been clear to me for many months that Romney has gone out of his way to market himself — in total refutation of his prior senatorial and gubernatorial campaigns — as a believer in Christ who shares the values of social/religious conservatives because of his faith. Now, which would you have us believe? His earlier secularism? Or his religious convictions? It can’t be both.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
MarkG,
You vote based on religion, don’t you? I would suppose that your information about the Church of Jesus Christ from your christian buddies and ex-mormons is more powerful than actual members. Have it your way, but it’s still a very one-dimensional approach, and you obviously didn’t appreciate Mitt’s speech on faith in America either. If Mitt doesn’t get elected, it’s everyone’s loss, and I just hope and pray that it’s not chiefly because he is a mormon, because that would be stupid, nevertheless, Americans will get what they deserve in 2008, I hope they are smart enough to use their brains. I think everyone would agree on that.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
MarkG,
I have no interest in debating Mormonism, and I’m surely not qualified. I just have to wonder about the sort of intellectual bubble one has to live in to take those invective laced ex-Mormon screeds at face value.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
MarkG,
I’m sorry if you took my comments as degrading your ability to believe as you wish, or disagree with me. My comments were to the larger issue of how this election has, unfortunately, been framed in religious terms by the media.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
JR, I vote on the purely secular basis of the affairs of this world, not the totally unknowable nature of the next.
Matthew, I’m equally unqualified to debate Mormon belief. Yet some of the descriptions of the ritual, its providence, and multiple corroborations by those who prefer not to offend remaining LDS family members make for compelling testimony. As a default I come down on the side of traditional Christian views of faith, separate here-and-now skepticism, and Popper’s skeptical rationalism.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Yes, MarkG, Mormons do indeed believe in a lot of hard-to-swallow stuff. They believe that God called a 14-year-old boy to be a prophet. They believe that said prophet was led to some buried plates of gold upon which a sacred record was writen about the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, written in a language that nobody had ever heard of. They believe that this prophet was visited by a series of angels including Peter, James, and John who restored the Holy Priesthood.
Makes one wonder how such a smart, solid-thinking man like Mitt Romney could believe such stuff, doesn’t it.
A funny thing, though. There have been a number of studies done that show that the rate of activity in the Mormon church goes up with the amount of education a member has. In other words, the more educated the Mormon, the more likely he is to be a faithful member.
This is a religion, after all that teaches, “The glory of God is intelligence”, and “Whatever principle of intelligence we obtain unto in this life will rise with us in the resurrection.” It also teaches, “seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”
Yes indeed, it is truly a wonder how a church so dedicated to education and obtaining knowledge, wisdom, and inteligence can have such hard-to-swallow beliefs. Yet here it is. And it continues to grow with hundreds of thousands of new converts every year. Why just a couple of years ago, a wonderful woman joined our congregation. Smart. Educated. Guess what drew her to investigate the church? It was all the wild claims against the church like those you spent hours immersing yourself in. But unlike you, she didn’t say, “All these claims against the Mormons must be true.” Instead, she said, “This can’t be. No one could be this bad. I want to see what all the fuss is about.” She came. She asked questions. She studied. She prayed. She was baptized. She met a man after about a year and a half. Just last month they were sealed as husband and wife for time and all eternity in the temple and are very happy — all because of those vicious, nasty sites you seem so worried about.
So this church continues to grow, to prosper, and spread across the world in spite of all the abuse heaped upon it. Joseph Smith said, “The Standard of Truth has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. Persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame. But the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and dependent till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, until the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah will say, ‘The work is done.’â€
I have lived for over fifty years. I have seen apostates come and go. A number of them were trumpted by the anti-Mormon press as “the final nail in the coffin of Mormonism”. The church is still here stronger than ever, and the apostates are long forgotten.
Trust me on this, the church has nothing to worry about from those sites. Oh, they may stop the ambitions of one Willard Mitt Romney, but they will not hurt the church.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Some of you are going overboard.
There’s still a long way to go, with lots of news items to boot. There’s going to be some revelations in the next week or so. Mark it down…
December 10th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Irish, I respect your honesty in such matters and equally hope not to have disparaged your personal beliefs, although when we wade into these waters, it seems difficult to show appropriate respect. May you succeed and prosper personally, even if I deeply disagree with the Mormon means to the to-be-hoped-for, laudable ends for any individual human being.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
MarkG,
We definitely won’t talk about temples….it’s way too sacred. But I can testify, having been many times that there is nothing hairraising about it, except in terms of spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost. You can’t believe everything you read….Matthew is definitely right about that. Do you realize that some people are professional anti-Mormons? There have been cases where people have gotten baptized into the church one day and resigned the next just so they could become members of Ex-Mormons for Christ and give lectures or write books. There is a sizable market for that kind of thing in Evangelical circles.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
MarK, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m prone to introspection, reflection, and — at times — meditation in a more spiritual sense, but have no use for doctrine and ecclesiastical or celestial hierarchies. I think we can generally dispense with arguments about faith.
You’d probably win anyway, since I’d run out of time and interest for/in trying to support arguments to the contrary. But that doesn’t mean I think you’re right and I’m off base.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
“There’s going to be some revelations in the next week or so. Mark it down…”
tommy, that’s the second tease from you today (that I’ve read). give it up; you’re killing us.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
The anti mormon crap on here just goes to show a complete lack of intellegence. Since I assume everyone on this site is a republican, ask yourself how many Dems would be President if the Mormon population who disagrees with Protestant faiths had simply stayed home. What if they did what Mormon bigots like Rett suggest and say “I wont vote for Bush, or Reagan, or Bush because they dont believe in Jesus like I do”. With millions of Mormons OUTSIDE Utah in each 50 states who vote GOP about 75% of the time, it would have esentially handed the election off to the Dems.
So lets not try to disinfranchise the fastest growing church in the US and world, with nearly 7 million americans, that vote for, volunteer for, and fund GOP candidates about 70-80% of the time. Its foolish to do so.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
#147 – Yea Tommy, please do tell.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:07 am
MarkG, “I’m prone to introspection, reflection, and — at times — meditation in a more spiritual sense, but have no use for doctrine and ecclesiastical or celestial hierarchies.”
Nothing wrong with that. The Gospel is either true, or it is not. How more simple can you get? I have often said that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is very simple in its complexity and very complex in its simplicity. It is like another creation of God, the universe in that respect. Everything just seems to fit together.
(Psalm
Happy meditating!
(-:
December 11th, 2007 at 10:12 am
“Who would you like to see the Republican party nominate as its presidential candidate in 2008 – John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom Tancredo?”
“THE ORDER OF GIULIANI, HUCKABEE, MCCAIN, ROMNEY, AND THOMPSON WERE ROTATED, FOLLOWED BY THE REST IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.”