GOV. ROMNEY: I believe that long-term for America to remain a great nation and to lead the world, we must have a recognition of our religious base.
So, conversely, Romney believes that America cannot remain a great nation, and cannot lead the world if we don’t have a recognition of our religious base?
GOV. ROMNEY: The decision (about running for president) was made by my sons and daughters-in-law and my wife and myself in December of last year.
Uh, Mitt…2005 was TWO years ago.
Romney vetoes law on pill, takes aim at Roe v. Wade
Opinion article reflects a shift from ‘02 view
July 26, 2005
Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts: “Not only did he let down women and families in our state, but he has not kept his word . “I think he’s more concerned about the opinions of Iowa caucus goers than the opinion of women in our state.”
Senator Susan Fargo: “Mitt Romney’s justification for this flip-flop is nothing but a cowardly smoke screen. His real motivation is his political ambition.”
Senator Pamela Resor: “This bill has nothing to do with abortion, except that its passage will help prevent them. For Governor Romney to put his own political aspirations before the safety, health, and well-being of women across the Commonwealth is irresponsible.”
Romney exits right
December 15, 2005
It’s 1 term for Romney; he says ‘future is open’
Decision sets stage for run at presidency
December 15, 2005
GOV. ROMNEY: I believe very firmly in the principle of, of free agency, people making their own decisions and doing what they think is right.*
* Except on the issue of abortion.
GOV. ROMNEY: Religions are in a competitive battle. They’re competing for souls and adherents.
I can’t wait to hear Christopher Hitchens’ response to this candid crap from an unenlightened proselytizer.
MR. RUSSERT: You, you raise the issue of color of skin. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court, Brown vs. Board of Education, desegregated all our public schools. In 1964 civil rights laws giving full equality to black Americans. And yet it wasn’t till 1978 that the Mormon church decided to allow blacks to participate fully. Here was the headlines in the papers in June of ‘78. “Mormon Church Dissolves Black Bias. Citing new revelation from God, the president of the Mormon Church decreed for the first time black males could fully participate in church rites.” You were 31 years old, and your church was excluding blacks from full participation. Didn’t you think, “What am I doing part of an organization that is viewed by many as a racist organization?”
GOV. ROMNEY: I’m very proud of my faith, and it’s the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a, a faith–well, it’s true and I love my faith. And I’m not going to distance myself in any way from my faith. But you can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at, at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mm was a tireless crusader for civil rights. You may recall that my dad walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 in San Francisco in part because Barry Goldwater, in his speech, gave my dad the impression that he was someone who was going to be weak on civil rights. So my dad’s reputation, my mom’s and my own has always been one of reaching out to people and not discriminating based upon race or anything else. And so those are my fundamental core beliefs, and I was anxious to see a change in, in my church.
I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and, and literally wept. Even at this day it’s emotional, and so it’s very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the, the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons.
MR. RUSSERT: But it was wrong for your faith to exclude it for as long as it did.
GOV. ROMNEY: I’ve told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there–there’s, there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God, and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.
Despite allegedly being brought to tears, so overwhelmed that to continue driving could be dangerous, a 31-year old Mitt Romney never once spoke out against the Mormon church’s policy to proscribe blacks from full participation. Instead, he desperately attempts to ride his father’s MLK coattails, and won’t admit, straight up that, ‘of course, it was wrong.’ I’m sorry, Mr. Romney, but to buy that nice little anecdote would require a willful suspension of disbelief.
[Update: Commenters Jeff Fuller and Murphy explain why Romney is loathe to acknowledge 30 years later that it was wrong for his faith to exclude blacks for as long as they did.
Jeff Fuller: Anyone publicly speaking out on such issues and trying to publicly lead a movement against current church doctrine will often be excommunicated from the church. Sounds harsh, I know . . . but those are the ground rules that all LDS know.
murphy: It comes down to a loyalty to church leadership, and a belief in church policy being the will of God. Saying one is happy that a policy got changed is a very different thing from saying that the policy was wrong in the first place.]
Jeff,
Fair enough. My question, though, is why Romney, today, still won’t admit that it was wrong?
What I was calling BS on was not Mitt’s genuine emotion displayed this morning, but the less than credible story of a 31-year old Mitt in 1978 being so moved to tears upon hearing blacks were being granted full participation by the Church of LDS that he had to pull off the road.
I would accept Romney’s 1978 account without question if he had previously articulated his shame for that obviously embarrassing time in the Church of LDS’s history. If Mitt weren’t so loathe to acknowledge 30 years later that it was wrong for his faith to exclude blacks for as long as they did, he would most certainly warrant the benefit of the doubt. But, he doesn’t, because, by omission, he was latently defending the indefensible.
GOV. ROMNEY: I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is.
Mitt, if you actually believe that almost everyone in this nation is personally opposed to abortion, then you’re more detached from reality than I ever imagined. I suspect a sizable percentage of Americans would be personally opposed to impoverished pregnant 11-16 year old kids NOT having abortions.
GOV. ROMNEY: My view (on abortion) is that the right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned and then return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to deal with, with life and abortion on their own.
On the gay marriage issue in Massachusetts, Romney objected, saying “they could either take the decision away from the people or they could give the decision to the people, and the state legislature of Massachusetts decided to not allow the people to vote on the definition of marriage. I think it’s unfortunate.”
Romney’s proposed answer to this refusal to allow “the people” to choose was that “we need to have a Federal marriage amendment … because states like Massachusetts will take the course they did.”
Romney wants legislatures making such personal decisions for girls and women on matters like pregnancy and abortion, but if an elected legislature wants to extend marriage rights to gays, then the will of the people is being circumvented? Real consistent reasoning, there, Mitt.
GOV. ROMNEY: I would allow, on a private basis, the use of surplus embryos, so-called surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization, and likewise the existing lines. So from a legal–and I faced that in Massachusetts. I, in the bill there, I said I would continue to allow the use of surplus embryos from IVF.
MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, the embryos that are so-called surplus in vitro clinics are destroyed…
GOV. ROMNEY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: …for research, and you support that.
GOV. ROMNEY: The term support is perhaps not the exact word I’d choose.
MR. RUSSERT: You wouldn’t outlaw it.
GOV. ROMNEY: I would, I would not outlaw it. I would allow, I would allow private laboratories and private institutions–as we currently do, and as the president does as well–to use these so-called surplus or embryos to be discarded.
Let me note as well, Tim, in that regard, that, that I think before we, we move too far down that road that we establish a provision for parents to have authority over their own embryos and to have adoption procedures so that they might be able to provide these embryos, as some call them, snowflake babies to allow them to be adopted by others and to be implanted and become human beings. That’s the, that’s the course I’d prefer. But I would not outlaw the use of these, of these surplus embryos if the parents so directed.
Mitt has no problem with the destruction of human life provided the parents so directed. So, this begs the question…At what point then in the course of fetal development would Romney not allow women to have the direct authority over their own bodies?
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That’s the key thing. I support background checks to, to–for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure that the, that the crazies don’t buy guns.
Nice way for a prospective president to refer to the mentally ill.
GOV. ROMNEY: I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor.
Oops.
GOV. ROMNEY: I have to clear up the most egregious error in that (Boston Globe) article (on illegal aliens working on his property). It said my house is pink. I would not have a pink house, I assure you.
Well, I guess it’s safe to say then that Mitt is no fan of John Mellencamp or Paris Hilton.
GOV. ROMNEY: We’re certainly not going to have an America where a homeowner is expected or even thought of going out and saying, “Gosh, I see some workers here who have an accent. I want them to bring papers so I can inspect them.” As a matter of fact, I think that’s against the law in this country. And so, in this case, the, the landscaper, or the contractor has a responsibility to ensure that their workers are legal.
So after the first story came out, I met with the–excuse me, my son met with the landscaper and sat down with him and said, “Look, you’re a good person, and you’re a friend, and–but we can’t possibly have someone working at my dad’s house that’s not a legal alien, and so you have to be absolutely certain anybody working here is legal.” And he assured us that he, he would do just that. And he failed in that effort. He, according to the paper, he tried, he got documents, apparently, from all the people who, who he had work at our property. Apparently one or two of them had falsified their documents. That’s the very reason why we so desperately need in this country an employment verification system, so that an employer who’s hiring people can know who’s here legally or illegally. If we don’t have that, what it’s going to say to an employer is, you better not hire someone that has any accent because if you do, it’s possible they’ve counterfeited their documents and you’re going to get whacked and the people you work for are going to get whacked.
Repeating the same BS “funny accent” line, I see.
OK, but what if they no habla o comprende un palabra de ingles, and are incapable of communicating with a prospective employer, or a company’s customers?
GOV. ROMNEY: What employers tell me, and I, and I talk to a lot of people in small business, they say, “It is almost impossible for us to know who’s here legally and illegally.”
Rudy Giuliani (1996): We’re never ever going to be able to totally control immigration. I don’t don’t know that there’s any technological way to totally control it.
Rudy Giuliani (2007): We should end illegal immigration at the border, because it can’t be really dealt with internally.
And yet it was the Romney camp that tried to smear Giuliani by disseminating this video clip on Friday. Hey, why bother being honest now, right?
Russert relished ragging on Romney for his flip-flops, to the point of pulling out a pair of actual flip-flops as a prop, taunting Romney as he dangled them in his face.
MR. RUSSERT: I think what people try to get at is that when you were governor of Massachusetts, you were a moderate Republican, and that’s the way you won–on abortion, on stem cell research, on gun control and immigration, on raising fees.
Tim reminded viewers that the head of the Bay State Council of the Blind said Romney’s name was “Fee-Fee” for constantly raising fees while governor of Massachusetts. He then presented the embarrassing contrast in Romney’s reverence for Reagan, or lack thereof.
Romney on Friday night…
GOV. ROMNEY: The right way for America to proceed when we face the kind of challenges we face is to pursue the strategy which Ronald Reagan pursued when we faced the challenges of the last century.
Romney running for Senate…
GOV. ROMNEY: Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.
Russert’s toughest question of the day was not met with an answer by the former Bay State governor.
MR. RUSSERT: Could you be elected governor of Massachusetts on your current platform, the one you now espouse about abortion, gay rights, gun control, stem cell research, immigration?
Romney was insistent that he only flipped on abortion…oh, and the federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act, but if that were the case, if he really hasn’t changed, if he hasn’t opportunistically shifted rightward for Republican primary voters, then why didn’t he respond to Russert’s question with a simple ‘yes’, or “I believe I could.”
Towards the end of the interview, Romney was most disappointing when he aped the defeatist Democrats’ mantra, asserting “Iraq IS a mess. There’s no question…”
I think General Petraeus would respectfully disagree with that MSM-slanted impression.
In closing, adding insult to injury, Romney received the worst of Russert’s three closing salutations.
For those who are unaware, Tim issues a subtle grade every Sunday morning to his guests at each show’s conclusion.
The best a guest can get is: “Thank you very much for joining us.”
The middle grade is: “Thank you for very much for joining us and sharing your views.”
Then, there’s the least laudatory and most curt closing…to which Romney was stamped with a seal of disapproval:
“Thank you very much for sharing your views.”
December 16th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I think if there is one thing everyone can agree on, it’s that Tim Russert grills his guests. When my wife asked me how Romney did on MTP, I told her what I felt was the truth. If you support Romney going into the MTP interview, you probably thought he did well. If you didn’t support Romney, you probably thought he did horrible. It was the same with “The Speech”. At least for those of us on this site. How well his performance plays out with the voters who are just tuning in to the primary races, is yet to be seen. I think that EVERY candidate has their baggage, Romney included. I would hope that all-in-all even those that don’t support Romney would say he held his own.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
“For those who are unaware, Tim issues a subtle grade every Sunday morning to his guests at each show’s conclusion”
I had no idea. Thanks for adding that.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
I am not a Romney fan, but I think he did okay. I’ve seen him better and I’ve seen him worse.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Yes, thank you for adding the subtle grade information. Do you happen to know what subtle grade the other candidates received?
December 16th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
#4 - Yeah, I would be curious to know that as well. IF all the GOP’ers got the same “rating” then it carries less of an impact. I would be curious to know.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
So liberal Tim Russert doesn’t endorse Romney . . . he’s not picking up many liberal/Democratic operative endorsements like McCain and Huckabee seem to be.
And this analysis is from a Rudy supporter. Where was your similar critique for Rudy’s major under-performance?
That Mitt did a whole heck of a lot better than Rudy and that you chose to pick out a few sections and critique them for Mitt speaks volumes to the credibility to this post.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Of T.V. journalists, Tim is probably the most fair.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Rudt did do poorly.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
oops…”Rud[y] did do poorly.”
December 16th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
This post is just plain stupid. If you can’t see through the obvious bias, then you’re an idiot.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
The MTP transcript should say “adherents” . . . in “GOV. ROMNEY: Religions are in a competitive battle. They’re competing for souls and adherence.”
December 16th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I will say Aron, of the following exerpts:
Opinion article reflects a shift from ‘02 view
July 26, 2005
Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts: â€Not only did he let down women and families in our state, but he has not kept his word . â€I think he’s more concerned about the opinions of Iowa caucus goers than the opinion of women in our state.â€
Senator Susan Fargo: â€Mitt Romney’s justification for this flip-flop is nothing but a cowardly smoke screen. His real motivation is his political ambition.â€
Senator Pamela Resor: â€This bill has nothing to do with abortion, except that its passage will help prevent them. For Governor Romney to put his own political aspirations before the safety, health, and well-being of women across the Commonwealth is irresponsible.â€
Does it really surprise you that the Executive Director of the NARAL Pro-Choice Massachussets, and 2 Democratic Senators would harbor these views if Mitt went away from their views on issues. Quoting them only hardly proves your point here.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
RE; Giuliani and immigration. I know a lot of people are trying to brand his pessimism about being able to control immigration at the border in 1996 and current pledge to end illegal immigration as some kind of flip-flop, but the clip here gives that a bit more context. ON PBS’s Open Mind in 1995, he made the same argument he’s making now, but from the perspective of a mayor, not a presidential candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Y2RJBIza8
December 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
From Wikipedia:
“Russert graduated from law school and went to work on New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1976 Senatorial campaign. He later went to work on New York Democrat Mario Cuomo’s 1982 gubernatorial campaign.”
He’ll bash everybody, sure . . . but he’s much less harsh on the Dems. He’s a loyal Democrat through and through.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
And regarding this line:
“Despite allegedly being brought to tears, so overwhelmed that to continue driving could be dangerous,”
He said he pulled over. Did you see the same interview I did, or is this just cut and paste? I would hope for a little more even-keeled reporting of the facts from a front-page poster.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Good review. I also didn’t buy that weeping anecdote.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
What a terrible review. Aron really lets his pro-Rudy anti-Mitt feelings out on the loose. This is written like a comment, not a front page article. And it should be viewed that way.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
#13. Thanks for the link. Team Rudy should use this more often in their responses to the media.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I think we all believe Mitt did very well today. And, I think we all know Rudy fell falt on his face last week. I believe it was a significant contribution to his slide, along with his last debate. And Russert didn’t grill Rudy even close to as much as any one of us could have. He has a lot more skeletons than what Tim asked him about.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
It is true to say that Mitt wouldn’t be re-elected in MA, and he won’t win their electoral votes anytime soon.
What is missed is that Rudy won’t either. Now that he’s running on a “personally hate abortion, pro-gun anti-illegal immigation” platform he won’t be getting NY electoral votes anytime soon.
Which means that if Rudy or Mitt wins, they won’t win their home state. Who is the last President to win the presidency despite losing their home state?
December 16th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
[...] It has turned out that Mitt Romney’s Meet the Press appearance appeared decent at the time, but mistakes seem to be coming out of the woodwork. Race 4 2008 has one write-up. [...]
December 16th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
In case you guys aren’t aware, Ron Paul just passed $17 million raised in the fourth quarter. He has raised over $5 million just today. WOW!
December 16th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Aron wrote: “Despite allegedly being brought to tears, so overwhelmed that to continue driving could be dangerous, a 31-year old Mitt Romney never once spoke out against the Mormon church’s policy to proscribe blacks from full participation. Instead, he desperately attempts to ride his father’s MLK coattails, and won’t admit, straight up that, ‘of course, it was wrong.’ I’m sorry, Mr. Romney, but to buy that nice little anecdote would require a willful suspension of disbelief.”
Russert was trying to get Romney to bash his church . . . but he wouldn’t take the bait. K Lo (a Catholic) appreciated this.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWEwZjcyYmZmMGZhZGUwNGMyNzFhYjUxNDU0YWRjMmI=
The long and the short of why it took so long for the LDS Church to reverse this policy is that the 15 top leaders of the Church that must be in unanimity on the issue . . . and these top leaders aren’t fired or “retired” . . . you have to die to get out of one of those top spots. There was one of them who was adamant in his opinion and could not be swayed. They basically had to wait for him to die (a sad and forgetable moment in LDS church history).
There were lots of people working behind the scenes to help sway the leaders and the Romney family was cheif among them. But, you complain that Romney “never spoke out once” against it. Well, anyone pubically speaking out on such issues and trying to publically lead a movement against current church doctrine will often be excommunicated from the church. Sounds harsh, I know . . . but those are the ground rules that all LDS know.
That’s why many members prayed and waited for an official change, Mitt among them, I’m sure.
That Aron and Colin think that Romney “feigned” this emotional moment is despicable. If he could pull up a tear and “feel your pain” like Clinton, don’t you think he would have done that a time or two while explaining his abortion conversion? That would be a lot more valuble than this peripheral issue of Blacks in the LDS church.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
who cares?
December 16th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
that was the ron paul thing
December 16th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
13
Very Interesting. I’ve never seen that but as a former New Yorker I have instinctively known that was Giuliani attitude. He is tarred unfairly by those who have no clue.
It won’t be realized by most political analysts, at least they won’t admit to it, but I bet social psychologists could explain that Romney gets away with much because of his movie star looks and upper class background while Giuliani suffers from his NYC roots and- even as it is never discussed- unlike Romney’s religion- his ethnic name.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
TC (22) What is Ron Paul going to do with all this money? He could really stat to play spoiler for other campaigns.
Given his recent poll numbers where 7% (Iowa) & 11% (NH) could he get a top three slot in NH? That would almost write off (say) Rudy’s chances at the nomination.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Clearly a post made by a pundit with an agenda.
Russert asked some pretty tough questions. I think he did wonderfully. Russert didn’t tie Romney to Osama Bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jung Il; like he did to Rudy, but Romney was able to defend his positions, and I think he did so honorably.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
20 JayPe
I believe Giuliani would win NY. At worst make it so competitive the Democrat would suffer elsewhere.
For a Republican to win statewide he has to have extraordinary Jewish support- see D’Amato.
Giuliani would get that Jewish support in spades.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
While I was looking for video of other candidates on MTP, I ran across this link. I thought it was an interesting contrast between Rudy and Mitt. Granted, I am sure a few of these were warranted, but it does remind me of the Hillary “cackle” when hard pressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35s17704Qsw
I wonder if it is a subconcious reflex when hard-pressed to just try and laugh it off.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
30
You have to either laugh or cry at this political process. Laughing is probably better.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
#18 and #26
If you watch the first couple minutes of that video clip, and then take a look at his new ad (below) you’ll notice that nothing has really changed in his actual position on illegal immigration and how to deal with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlWv34YqoQ4
December 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
In the future, spare us your crappy commentary on interviews; this isn’t Mystery Science Theater 3000.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Opinionated:
Your posts are usually a little wacky, but this is something I haven’t seen somebody post before. There is a massive, undetected prejudice against italians??? How many articles are there that talk about Italian prejudice? Is THAT why Tancredo never quite took off as a candidate?
I WONDER why most political analyst aren’t picking up on that little discerning tidbit, that you were so astute to detect? Perhaps because it is nonsense? I think so.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Michael Reichard, Jared and Illinoisguy,
Mitt Romney’s #1 fan, Hugh Hewitt, would vehemently disagree with the three of you.
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/de740dc8-fe0a-4a27-b37e-f213503b84a2
December 16th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
The Politico’s Jonathan Martin also had words of praise for Giuliani MTP performance:
Smiling Rudy seems to survive tough “Meet”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1207/Smiling_Rudy_seems_to_survive_tough_Meet.html
December 16th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
34
It’s not prejudice against Italians so much as against Italians from NYC who talk with a street tough accent. Even though he’s done more to bust organized crime than anyone since Eliot Ness, he looks and talks like a Mafia member, and that hurts him. If you listen close enough, you’ll hear plenty of whispering about it on right wing blogs.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
The only reason Rudy didn’t get hit with all his flip flops on MTP is because his persoanl baggage alone took up the entire hour.
The bottom line is every candidate has flipped on certain issues. THats all they have on Mitt so he takes the flipflop heat.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Joseph D. Walch
Right! LOL. That’s why if you go to sites where Giuliani is regularly despised such as FreeRepublic there is frequently an undercurrent that the skeletons in his closet include the Mafia.
But then I really don’t expect Romney supporters to discern much of anything. They seem to take everything he says at face value, never mind what face he has on for what ever office he happens to be seeking.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
#35 - Aron, I wasn’t attacking Giuliani’s performance, as I didn’t see it, I just thought it was interesting to see a montage of how many times he laughed off criticism on what seemed like tough questions. I can only say, the collective “giggling” made me feel uncomfortable. My wife was in the room as I was playing it, and she hardly follows politics AT ALL (Which would make her, I assume, like most people
) said, “that bugs how much he is giggling.” I did point out to her that it was a montage trying to create the effect, but it just seemed like he was a little uncomfortable. (Who wouldn’t be with Russert’s grilling 
)
December 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Aron, getting a little desparate now that Rudy is tanking pretty much everywhere? Your boy’s strategy of losing lots of states up front was just ridiculous from the outset. Using your language (which you took from Hillary) I think his strategy required..a “willful suspension of disbelief.”
December 16th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
#35 - “Mitt Romney’s #1 fan, Hugh Hewitt, would vehemently disagree with the three of you.”
I wonder if he would “vehemently” disagree after now seeing Romney’s performance, and having something to compare to Rudy’s?? (Again, I have not seen Rudy’s, but Hugh has) I would be curious to read his thoughts tomorrow comparing the two, or at least assessing Romney, so that I can then compare the two myself.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
#32. Yes, no change at all;clearly he had spent some time thinking about this problem in the wake of 1994 CA prop. But it is important that the communications people for the Rudy campaign should see that all influential commentators see this and similar clips on other issues so that they will not be swayed by the out-of-context youtube videos bandied about by the rival campaigns.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
How could Mitt have done any better? Russert used everything he could dig up against him, synthesized from thousands of press stories and videos, and there simply isn’t a single line of attack that he didn’t try to use. Mitt helped himself because he looked credible and sincere.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Jeff Fuller wrote in #23: “anyone publicly speaking out on such issues and trying to publicly lead a movement against current church doctrine will often be excommunicated from the church. Sounds harsh, I know . . . but those are the ground rules that all LDS know.
That’s why many members prayed and waited for an official change, Mitt among them, I’m sure.”
Jeff,
Fair enough. My question, though, is why Romney, today, still won’t admit, straight up that, ‘of course, it was wrong’?
What I was calling BS on was not Mitt’s genuine emotion displayed this morning, but the less than credible story of a 31-year old Mitt in 1978 being so moved to tears upon hearing blacks were being granted full participation by the Church of LDS that he had to pull off the road.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Who cares about Lefty Tim Russert?
December 16th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
“For those who are unaware, Tim issues a subtle grade every Sunday morning to his guests at each show’s conclusion.”
On that “Rudy Giggliani” YouTube clip, at the end I heard him say to Rudy, “Be safe on the campaign trail.” I wonder if that was how he ended his interview with Giuliani, or if that just means that Rudy did so poorly that Russert has hired a “hit-man” to take him out. Hehe
J/K
December 16th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
#43
Just in case you are interested, here is the tect of the whole speech from the giuliani video that Aron linked. Like any Giuliani speech, he ad libs some, so the official prepared text doesn’t match up with the live speech exactly, but it’s all there.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/96/ken.html
Note the context of the quote:
” Illegal immigration is a different matter. I do not defend it. No one should break the law. But preventing illegal immigration is the job of the federal government. The United States has to do a lot better job of patrolling our borders. If we can’t stop illegal immigration, then we can’t stop drugs and weapons from entering the country, either.
But in a country as large as ours, with our protection of individual liberty, and with a huge border that spans sea, deserts and mountains, and given the strong desire that people have to come to this country, the federal government may never be able to stop illegal immigration completely. At best, all we can expect is that the federal government will do a better job of patrolling our borders.
The reality is, people will always get in. And the reality is, the federal government does not deport them. In New York City, which has 400,000 undocumented immigrants, only about 1,500 a year are deported. Under the new federal legislation, that number would — at most — double to about 3,000 out of 400,000.”
It’s the same thing he says today, and he’s getting called a flip-flopper on immigration by disingenuous opponents. He goes on to talk about the reasons for giving services to people regardless of status in NYC (what Mitt calls “sanctuary city” laws), and surprise! they’re exactly the same as the reasons he gives now.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Romney was impressive in the interview. He doesn’t have to defend his faith to anyone BTW.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
“What I was calling BS on was not Mitt’s genuine emotion displayed this morning, but the less than credible story of a 31-year old Mitt in 1978 being so moved to tears upon hearing blacks were being granted full participation by the Church of LDS that he had to pull off the road.”
What makes his recollection of what he says happened BS? Is it that you couldn’t see yourself at 31 doing something like that? Or that you just don’t trust Mitt regardless of what he says in any context? Why wouldn’t/couldn’t it have happened exactly the way he said it did? Just curious as to why that seems so BS. It was an amotional subject for many in the church at that time (I was 4, but my dad told me that is was very emotional, and that he felt the same as Mitt said he felt).
December 16th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Looks like Aron Goldman is trying to be Tim Russert on steroids. If you really want to see a horrible interview, look at Rudy’s a week ago.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Aron #45,
Several people I know in an older generation tell a similar story of how emotional and grateful they were upon the granting of full ordinance participation to blacks. Many people prayed years for that very thing.
So maybe you should just back off of criticizing Mitt for something you don’t understand.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Big S,
I don’t see Rudy as a flip-flopper on the issue, as much as defending his stance. My problem with his stance is that because of the fact that we will always have illegals immigrants (I agree with him there) that we might as well create incentives/reasons to attract them to our major cities. It is like he is saying, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!” He had an opportunity to be a vocal supporter for stronger immigration enforcement particularly regarding the federal govt’s not deporting people like they should, and he didn’t take it. Granted he had a lot on his plate after 9/11, but I don’t recall him being in opposition to the lack of illegal immigration enforcement on the federal govt’s part. I can, however, see Rudy supporting policies now, if he were to get the nomination and win POTUS, that would strengthen the borders and reduce illegal immigration (ANY candidate who did not do that in this political environment would be crucified - I DON’T believe Huck would btw)
December 16th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
#50 -*emotional
December 16th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Jared,
I would accept his 1978 account without question if he had previously articulated his shame for that obviously embarrassing time in the Church of LDS’s history. If Mitt weren’t so loathe to acknowledge 30 years later that it was wrong for his faith to exclude blacks for as long as they did, he would most certainly warrant the benefit of the doubt. But, he doesn’t, because, by omission, he was latently defending the indefensible.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
#53
“I don’t recall him being in opposition to the lack of illegal immigration enforcement on the federal govt’s part.”
Did you even bother to look at the links, or did you misunderstand what he said? He’s been complaining about the lack of federal enforcement of immigration laws, on the record, for at least 12 years, from the beginning of his mayoralty. In the video I linked he states clearly (in 1995!)that if the federal gov’t could get a handle on illegal immigration, they could cut some of the funding they send to the cities to pay for services.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
#48. Thanks. The opponents try to portray him as soft on illegal immigration by quoting the early part of his speech where he criticises the anti-immigrant movement. The quote you gave is conveniently ignored.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Pssss…. When do you think Huck will come out and defend why baptists don’t give woman authority to preach till….. Or …. Come on, this is absolutely ridicules.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Aron #55,
It comes down to a loyalty to church leadership, and a belief in church policy being the will of God. Saying one is happy that a policy got changed is a very different thing from saying that the policy was wrong in the first place. You are slyly trying to paint Romney as soft on racism if he’s not willing to back away from his belief in the divine leadership at the source of church doctrine.
Can you bring yourself away from demanding disloyalty or disbelief in church leadership, and back to the political realm? You’ve never had any shortage of political gotcha attacks for Romney…should be plenty of those for you to hit him on.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
#55 - I have not done the research, but how do you know that he hasn’t come out and said that? Have you done the research? I think the points he made about his family being very active supporters of the Civil Rights movement says a lot regarding his family’s/his views on the subject. Something that I am not sure people understand regarding the whole issue with the church and blacks, was that they were allowed to join/be baptized, and participate in the regular meetings of the church. They were not however given the ability to hold the Priesthood/officiate in the ordinances (not saying it was justified, remember I was 4). I think that people outside of the church, while they have every right to view it the way they do, without being in the church during that time, really have no idea what Mitt’s true feelings were. I think the fact that he was clearly emotional about it this morning in his recollection of the event, would suggest that those same emotions were present at that time. Just my $0.02.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Aron questioning someone’s personal story is reprehensible. Just because he doesn’t bash his church for what it did thirty years ago doesn’t mean that he didn’t feel emotion when the church changed its opinion. Personal stories like that are something that we can’t go back and prove them or disprove them. If you don’t believe the story than fine, but keep that to yourself, otherwise your setting yourself in the place of the Only One who knows the heart and minds of men. Let’s stick to politics and not being cynical about emotions of candidates thirty years ago. You man not believe Mitt, but it doesn’t matter its his personal story and you have no way disprove, therefore shut up and talk about the issues.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
#56 - I guess my point was, that being from CA, I don’t recall ever hearing Giuliani on a national level (like Tancredo - only less crazy) voicing his opposition to the fed govt’s handling of the problem. He very well could have, just being in CA, never recalled hearing much from him about it, when he definitely had the forum as Mayor of NY to get some attention.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Aron,
“What I was calling BS on was not Mitt’s genuine emotion displayed this morning, but the less than credible story of a 31-year old Mitt in 1978 being so moved to tears upon hearing blacks were being granted full participation by the Church of LDS that he had to pull off the road.”
Even after you know his father and family worked so hard for civil rights and worked alongside civil rights leaders? Even after his family staked their political careers to ensure equality?
December 16th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
“It’s not prejudice against Italians so much as against Italians from NYC who talk with a street tough accent. Even though he’s done more to bust organized crime than anyone since Eliot Ness, he looks and talks like a Mafia member, and that hurts him. If you listen close enough, you’ll hear plenty of whispering about it on right wing blogs.”
I would say that street tough accent may be alot of give people the idea the idea that hed be a great fighter against Dems and terrorists, so its not like its just hurting him and not helping him. One of the big reasons I hear people like Rudy is because he’s a fighter, a tough street accent can’t hurt that perception.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Yeah because Rudy was real strong on immigration? (uncontrollable laughter in background)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhS-Ic9JohM&eurl
There is a distinct difference between pragmatism on immigration and out stretched arms.
Jared,
According to the Mayor himself, he was quite outspoken about the issue. Unfortunately he was delivering a different message then.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Thanks for posting that video, Big S #13. That video is 12 years old and it shows Rudy is consistent and honest throughout the years. No flip flops here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Y2RJBIza8
And by the way, I watched his interview with Russert last week and besides the media consensus that he held his own (I thought he did well), Rudy again came across as consistent, thoughtful, and sincere.
By the way, Aron you said that “Tim issues a subtle grade every Sunday morning to his guests at each show’s conclusion.
The best a guest can get is: “Thank you very much for joining us.â€
The middle grade is: “Thank you for very much for joining us and sharing your views.â€
Then, there’s the least laudatory and most curt closing…to which Romney was stamped with a seal of disapproval:
“Thank you very much for sharing your views.â€
Well, this is what Russert said to Rudy at the end of last Sunday’s interview after they both enjoyed a laugh about Rudy being a Red Sox fan before being a Yankee fan…
MR. RUSSERT: Mayor Rudy Giuliani, we’re out of time. Be safe on the campaign trail.
MR. GIULIANI: Thanks, Tim. Thank you.
Guess Rudy did pretty well, hehe.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:09 am
66,
Or Russert considered his time wasted and therefore didn’t think to thank Giuliani…
December 17th, 2007 at 12:21 am
#66 - Like I stated earlier in jest, maybe Russert felt that the Mayor did so poorly, he issued a hit on him
Hence the “Be safe” comment. J/K
December 17th, 2007 at 12:22 am
#66
Or perhaps Russert enjoyed the interview so much he forgot to thank him. At any rate, Russert looked to be in a good mood when he told Rudy they were out of time and wished him well.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:23 am
As of midnight, Ron Paul has officially beat every political fundraising record in American history. Starting off the day with $11.5 million, he has ended the day with $17.9 million, bringing in a grand total of $6.4 million ($6 million of that being online donations), thus passing John Kerry’s confirmed record day of $5.7 million and Hillary Clinton’s unconfirmed record day of $6.2 million.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:24 am
#69 - Like I said earlier, gotta give Ron Paul credit for raising money. Maybe after he loses his bid for the nomination, he should consider a career as a Venture Capitalist. He has a knack for getting people to risk their money on risky propositions.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Or maybe this “subtle grade” thing is more myth than reality.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:32 am
#71 - Lol, Ron Paul didn’t raise any of it. They didn’t organize it at all. It was an idea from the grassroots. Ron Paul is just being swept along for the ride. There’s a brushfire of liberty starting.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Josiah — It’s not over on the West Coast! The Paul campaign is fascinating.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:36 am
I think the whole grade thing is a joke. Even if he gave Romney a bad grade, it’s coming from a lib with an agenda. That isn’t really who you want a good grade from.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:38 am
By the way, Aron, GREAT article. The only response the Rombots can cook up is “This is obviously a biased post.” Hah! This is two days in a row that you’ve slayed the charlatan in a front-page post, and in an oh-so-subtle manner, too.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Micah #75,
It is if you’re a Rudy supporter.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:40 am
My sister donated to Ron today. She is a lib from Hollywood. At least she isn’t voting for Hillary.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Regarding Huckabee on MTP - I wish they would have him back on now that he is top-tier. But listen to his flip-flop on the support for Pres. Bush right at the beginning. His own words then were, “I think that’s a dangerous position to take, to oppose a sitting Commander-in-Chief while we’ve got people being shot at on the ground. I think it’s one thing to have a debate and a discussion about the strategy. But to openly oppose, in essence the strategy, I think that can be a very risky thing for our troops.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22151071#22151071 - Full Video
Now contrast that with his most recent statement regarding Pres. Bush.
“The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists”
AND - quoting the article which is linked to here. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_attacks_Bushs_go_it_alone_1215.html
“In one specific criticism, Huckabee said Bush did not send enough troops to invade Iraq. And he accused the president of marginalizing Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, who said at the outset of the war that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion. “I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice,” Huckabee said.
How is his recent stance, and his recent comments not opposing a sitting Commander-in-Chief, and how does he justify putting our troops at risk, according to his own words, “But to openly oppose, in essence the strategy, I think that can be a very risky thing for our troops,”
Any Huckabee supporters care to address that obvious flip-flop?
December 17th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Yes, murphy, in fact, we would like to try and expand the base and invite new people into the party, rather than go out of our way to alienate everyone that isn’t a True Believer. That’s why you so-cons are a threat to the GOP long-term. You’re holding the party hostage. If the fundamentalists like Hick-abee and his brigade of crazies would leave (and the people like you that encourage their presence), then the GOP could truly become a ‘big tent’ party focused on fiscal responsibility, social moderation and a strong national security. Right now, we’re the Jesus Party! And it’s driving me crazy.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:42 am
#78 - Ron Paul’s just the guy to bring fiscal conservatism and small government to Hollywood.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Just a snippy comment, TLG. Don’t get on your soap box over it.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:43 am
TLG,
When have I neatly summarized Rudy as just a “liberal”? Please.
Of course he’s a social liberal. And of course he’s more liberal than other members of our party on hosts of issues. And sure, he even ran on the liberal ticket in NYC. But at no point can I remember summarizing Rudy simply as a liberal.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:44 am
It’s not just a snippy comment, though. You really do believe that Rudy is a “liberal.”
December 17th, 2007 at 12:45 am
#76 - TLG, don’t throw me in that mix please. I have tried to be as objective about this thread as I can. Thanks
December 17th, 2007 at 12:48 am
General Question.
What causes comments to “await moderation”? Just curious.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:49 am
“Slayed the charlatan in a front page post”.
Oh man. The shameless fawning of Aron’s young crowds is almost too much.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Jared, you might try posting only one hyperlink at a time. Otherwise, you’re food for the spam filter.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:50 am
“Oh man. The shameless fawning of Aron’s young crowds is almost too much.” - murphy
I don’t understand the purpose of the inclusion of the word ‘young’ in that quote.
I think Rudy fits the classical definition of a liberal. I fit the classical definition of a conservative. So sure I call him a liberal along with other people who call themselves libertarians.
We don’t use such definitions anymore. When someone calls Rudy a liberal, they do not mean to call him a hawkish libertarian, egs…
December 17th, 2007 at 12:51 am
I think Rudy fits the classical definition of a liberal. I fit the classical definition of a conservative. So sure I call him a liberal along with other people who call themselves libertarians.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Thanks murphy
We’ll try again:
Re-post:
Regarding Huckabee on MTP - I wish they would have him back on now that he is top-tier. But listen to his flip-flop on the support for Pres. Bush right at the beginning. His own words then were, “I think that’s a dangerous position to take, to oppose a sitting Commander-in-Chief while we’ve got people being shot at on the ground. I think it’s one thing to have a debate and a discussion about the strategy. But to openly oppose, in essence the strategy, I think that can be a very risky thing for our troops.â€
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22151071#22151071 - Full Video
Now contrast that with his most recent statement regarding Pres. Bush.
“The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terroristsâ€
AND - quoting the article I read this from.
“In one specific criticism, Huckabee said Bush did not send enough troops to invade Iraq. And he accused the president of marginalizing Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, who said at the outset of the war that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion. “I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice,†Huckabee said.
How is his recent stance, and his recent comments not opposing a sitting Commander-in-Chief, and how does he justify putting our troops at risk, according to his own words, “But to openly oppose, in essence the strategy, I think that can be a very risky thing for our troops,â€
Any Huckabee supporters care to address that obvious flip-flop?
December 17th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Looking over all of the presidential candidates’ appearances on Meet the Press in 2007, Biden and Thompson were the only ones to receive Russert’s ‘top grade.’ Edwards, Obama and Richardson all received Russert’s ‘middle grade’ this year, while Hillary and Dodd, like Huckabee, McCain and Romney, received the ‘worst.’
Giuliani received a rather unique “be safe on the campaign trail” after discussing various threats that existed against him and his loved ones during his recent MTP appearance.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Aron, Rudy is a Catholic right? I know he doesnt live the tenants of his faith (3 marriages, adultry, etc) like Mitt does, but he is still Catholic. I dont remember when Rudy spoke out against the Catholic church circling the wagons in defense of pedaphilia priests. Has he gone on record against his church?
December 17th, 2007 at 12:58 am
#92 - Thanks for doing the research Aron.
Interesting to see who he is kind to (in terms of his send-off) and who he is not. Interesting how the 2 with the “top-grade” have little to no chance at winning, and the “worst-grade” (minus Obama & Edwards) are competing. Doesn’t really give any clarity though on the GOP side in terms of the front-runners. Does that make it meaningless? Just asking.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Really the article just points out what Mitt said laced with Aron’s sour grapes “my candidate is tanking but yours sucks so Im going to attack him” attitude. Unless you were in the car with Mitt in 1978 when he heard the news, I really dont give a rats ass if you dont believe his story. You nothing but a Rudy hack who hates Romney as much as the Dems hate Bush. Its got them nowhere and your filth you post does Rudy no favors either.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:59 am
*I could be off on my post references (i.e. #92) because I have 1 comment awaiting moderation. If so, sorry to confuse.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Aron, Rudy is a Catholic right? I know he doesnt live the tenants of his faith (3 marriages, adultry, etc) like Mitt does, but he is still Catholic. I dont remember when Rudy spoke out against the Catholic church circling the wagons in defense of pedaphilia priests. Has he gone on record against his church?
Rudy is not running as the “Religion = Freedom” candidate. It’s not appropriate to ask Rudy questions about his religion because he, unlike Mitt and Huck, is not running as a Family Values-Loving, Moralizing Social Crusader.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Jared, sometimes adding links will cause the delay. I’m not sure how to tell a bad link though.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Not that you ever let things like facts get in the way, but for the record. Blacks have always been allowed to be members. There were some blessings that werent allowed but membership wasnt among them. Just as women in most churches (like Rudy’s) cant hold the priesthood. Some call that sexist, just as some call the mormon church racist. I dont really care what they call it. There are millions of black members today who hold the priesthood. Rudy talks about NYC and getting people off welfare. I dare say that no organization or city has done more to get others off welfare and care for its own than the mormons. We are 1st on the scene in a natural disaster, and provide millions and millions in aid. We vote for the GOP as solidly as any group and give millions to conservatives and their cause. For those who wish to be bigots, I wouldnt bite the hand that feeds you. Mormons have won elections by their overwhelming support before.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:07 am
#92- good post. It’s funny what people demand from Romney vs. other candidates.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:09 am
TLG, of course Rudy isnt running on family values, loving, moralizing social crusader, since he doesnt have family values. Just ask his family.
Mitt isnt running on his faith. He welcomes people of all faiths. It doesnt matter if you are a non practicing Catholic like Rudy or a minister like Huck. What brand of faith, and its tenants doesnt matter. Do idiots who love conservatism like TLG, really want to throw Mormons off the bus and run them over because of their beliefs. Wasnt Utah the reddest state in the land. Didnt mormons carry the election for Bush in places like AZ, NV, UT, CO, and places where he WOULD HAVE LOST HAD THEY JUST STAYED HOME. Dont mormons put millions into the coffers of conservative candidates? Than dont be a jackass and bite the hand that feeds you. If you dont agree with mormonism, go tell other members of your church and become a missionary or something. But leave politics out of it.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:09 am
TLG,
“It’s not appropriate to ask Rudy questions about his religion because he, unlike Mitt and Huck, is not running as a Family Values-Loving, Moralizing Social Crusader.”
While I agree that Rudy is not running his campaign on the weakest “leg” of his regarding the conservative “stool”, I would hardly use the words “It’s not appropriate to ask Rudy questions about his religion”. If it is appropriate to as Mitt and Huck, It is just as appropriate to ask Rudy his beliefs.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:13 am
While I agree that Rudy is not running his campaign on the weakest “leg†of his regarding the conservative “stoolâ€, I would hardly use the words “It’s not appropriate to ask Rudy questions about his religionâ€. If it is appropriate to as Mitt and Huck, It is just as appropriate to ask Rudy his beliefs.
No it isn’t! Rudy has not made religion an issue! The second Rudy brings up his faith or values as a reason to vote for him, it becomes appropriate, but he has not done so!
December 17th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Aron, you go ahead and put your trust in some stupid idea of what ending Russert says and ill put my faith in polls. They just seem more scientific to me than “have a good day” vs “take care” or “thanks for coming”. Call me crazy but I think polls tend to be more reliable on how a candidate is doing, or did.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/new_hampshire-primary.html
this one is one of my favorites.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_republican_primary-260.html
this one too.
at least you have your national lead still. You do still have that, dont you?
December 17th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Micah,
Thx on #92. I find it interesting that Huckabee says he doesn’t owe the President an apology regarding his recent comments. Well, how about the hundreds of thousand of troops that he put “at risk” with his comments opposing a sitting Commander-in-Chief??(According to his own admission on his MTP interview) Pretty damning evidence of just one of Huck’s flip-flops. Ironic that Romney has been labeled the flip-flop when clearly there is a FAR greater culprit in Huckabee.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Mitt isnt running on his faith. He welcomes people of all faiths. It doesnt matter if you are a non practicing Catholic like Rudy or a minister like Huck. What brand of faith, and its tenants doesnt matter. Do idiots who love conservatism like TLG, really want to throw Mormons off the bus and run them over because of their beliefs. Wasnt Utah the reddest state in the land. Didnt mormons carry the election for Bush in places like AZ, NV, UT, CO, and places where he WOULD HAVE LOST HAD THEY JUST STAYED HOME. Dont mormons put millions into the coffers of conservative candidates? Than dont be a jackass and bite the hand that feeds you. If you dont agree with mormonism, go tell other members of your church and become a missionary or something. But leave politics out of it.
I think that you really ought to relax, because there are more atheists in this country than Mormons. Mormons comprise like, one percent of the population. Bush still would have won AZ, UT, NV, and CO had they stayed home.
If you really think that Mormons are the “hand that feeds the GOP” then I ought to just dismiss you as utterly delusional and move on. Of course, I’m talking to the same person that thinks that there was an ancient Jewish civilization on the East Coast of this country…(Oh yes, I went there!)
December 17th, 2007 at 1:15 am
TLG,
In fairness to Romney, he hasn’t made his faith an issue. His detractors have, and he has had to address their attacks/criticisms. Huckabee on the other hand, has made it fair game, as that it the ONLY leg of the stool he is standing on.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Erhm, the last sentence of that referred to delusion, ie; the Mormon belief in an ancient Jewish civilization in the US.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:16 am
“Mormons comprise like, one percent of the population.”
Statistically it is 2%, but since when do the facts ever get reported on this site
December 17th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Jared, yes he has: “We need to have a person of faith as President.” “Religion and freedom are inseparable.” “We are honored to have Bob Jones’ endorsement. We share the same values.” No one forced any of that on Mitt. And if the Speech was in response to Huckabee, that only proves my point.
Etc, etc, etc.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:19 am
TLG, Aron, and metro are just a tool. I honestly can tell you that I dont have the same hate or passion AGAINST any candidate in the race as you do. I dont mind Rudy on Hugh Hewitt or MTP. You losers are like the “anybody but Bush, Cheney sucks, Bush lied/people died” Dems. They are void of any good ideas, and just spew their foolish hatred for Bush and Cheney. You do Rudy no favors. He completely gets a pass for his “evolutions” on everything from PBA to guns to abortion to supporting Cuomo. Forget Rudy, you just hate Romney. Its too bad really because if you would have made better pro Rudy points, and not drank the Koolaid and supported his ridiculious campaign plan, your candidate might not have been so irrelevant in the race from Christmas on. Losing sucks, I get that your pissed. Get over it.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Jared — Ah, two percent. Still nothing that matches the silly hyperbole of the above post, where husky claimed that Bush would have lost CO, AZ, NV, and UT if Mormons had stayed home. That’s just…a completely stupid claim.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:21 am
TLG,
All of those statements have been as Romney has stood in defense of his faith after having been first ASKED about it. I think of all the candidates, Romney is the one who MOST would want to keep his faith out of the race. I can see his “war room” now . . . “Mitt, I think we will win the nomination if we make a HUGE deal about your Mormon faith.” I really don’t think that is how it played out. The fact that Romney is trying to pull together the coalition of socons/ficons/defcons would make those statements valid when discussing the socon arena. That hardly makes it reasonable to grill him regarding the tenets of his faith, and the theological aspects of it. Which is EXACTLY what has happened.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:22 am
#101
People don’t bother to ask Rudy about his religious beliefs because he is Catholic. Out of all of the branches of Christianity, it’s by far the most predictable in terms of its adherents’ beliefs. Rudy was in Catholic school for most of his formative years (until law school, if I recall correctly), so I’m sure he could tell you all about it. Sure, he has his departures from Church teaching on social issues, but that’s pretty common among American Catholics.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:23 am
“where husky claimed that Bush would have lost CO, AZ, NV, and UT if Mormons had stayed home. That’s just…a completely stupid claim.”
While I agree he would have carried CO, AZ, and NV, . . . UT might have been a closer call than you think.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:24 am
TLG,
If you’re going to say that Bush could have won CO, AZ, NV, and UT without the mormon vote, at least have the common sense to use the population of mormons in those particular states.
Good grief.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:25 am
You do Rudy no favors. He completely gets a pass for his “evolutions†on everything from PBA to guns to abortion to supporting Cuomo. Forget Rudy, you just hate Romney.
Grr, I explained this earlier in a different thread: Rudy is not running on those issues. I don’t care about flip-flops, really, as long as they’re just to mollify the base and not to run on the issues. Romney flip-flopped on issues specifically to run on them. He’s a phony. Just a total freaking phony. This new story about crying in the car just caps off a year full of lies. The man has no shame.
We love Rudy, though we also don’t worship him, unlike you Rombots with your candidate.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:26 am
“I think that you really ought to relax, because there are more atheists in this country than Mormons. Mormons comprise like, one percent of the population. Bush still would have won AZ, UT, NV, and CO had they stayed home”
TLG, are you really that stupid to think that. Lets see, I would say that about 80%+ mormons vote GOP. There are about 400,000 Mormons in AZ, where Bush won by about 90,000. If they stayed home, you suggest he still would have won. There are about the same number in NV where Bush won by maybe 2-3%, but you think that he would have won there too. There are about 100,000 or so in NM where Bush won by less than 1,000 in 2000, 04 Im not sure of but it was close too. Yet you think Bush would have won there too huh. Utah gave Bush his largest margin of victory (about 75%) in a state where only about 60% are Mormon. Many of the 40% are not, and like vote Dem. So its fair to say that we are a fairly big voting block. You are probably too stupid to know that we are the fastest growing religion in the US and throughout the world too. And that we are the youngest religion in the US as well. We will grow in size and continue to be a force for good. We strengthen the community 1000% more than some NYC mayor ever has.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Big S,
I agree that Rudy’s Catholicism makes him more “acceptable” to socons in the sense that his faith is mainstream, and thus less subject to scrutiny regarding the tenets of his faith. I was just pointing out that in politics, there apparently are no “off-limits” questions for ANY candidate.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:30 am
117
I agree that there are no “off limits” questions for individual voters. I’m also not sure Catholicism makes Rudy more acceptable to a lot of socons (especially if he’s not the world’s greatest Catholic.) However, there’s no mystery to it anymore, so nobody bothers to ask.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:30 am
TLG, If you’re going to say that Bush could have won CO, AZ, NV, and UT without the mormon vote, at least have the common sense to use the population of mormons in those particular states. Good grief.
Nevada - 7 percent / Bush 50-48
Arizona - 5.5 percent / Bush 55-44
Colorado - 2 percent / Bush 52-47
In other words, Bush still would have won the presidency even if every single Mormon in the entire country stayed home.
It was a stupid point anyway, but it was incorrect, so I addressed it.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:31 am
“I don’t care about flip-flops, really, as long as they’re just to mollify the base and not to run on the issues. Romney flip-flopped on issues specifically to run on them.”
I don’t understand what you are trying to say with this quote TLG. Are you saying that flip-flopping to pander (mollify) the base NOT during an election is acceptable, but flip-flopping to win an election by pandering (mollifying) the electorate is not OK?? Please clarify.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:33 am
116 — Read 119 and weep.
Bush won by 6,000 votes in NM in 2004. There are about 80,000 Mormons in New Mexico. Yes, Bush would have lost NM and NV had every single Mormon stayed home.
He would have still won the presidency.
Again, though, I say: this is an idiotic argument.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:34 am
I got it now, Rudy isnt running on the issues he flip flopped on so he gets a pass. Got it. And Romney is a phony as if its the Gospel according to you. Well unfortunately most people disagree with you. You see, everybody has known Rudy for years now. They get that he thinks he can part the red sea and is the savior of NYC. He did great in 04 at the convention. Then he ran for Pres. Of course he was popular since everyone knew him and loved him. Then after a year of looking at his record, his affairs, his background, etc, most have said no thanks and support someone else. Its funny really that your man is almost completely irrelevant in the race now. I didnt think this would happen til Jan 8th when he got 3rd place in his backyard of NH. But apparently its happening much sooner. Im sure in the end, people will reject your pointless, baseless claims that Romney (married to the same woman for 40 years) is a phony, and accept that Rudy (ill have an affair with anyone, then allow the cops to be their driver and hid the charges for it) Giuliani is the real phony. Hell if your family cant trust you, if your 1st and 2nd wife dont trust you, how can Americans trust you. I think they will more likely trust a Mormon, since “like em or hate em”, Mormons have integrity. I wont waste my time explaining integrity, you wouldnt get it.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Jared, what I’m trying to say is that flip-flopping is something I’m okay with giving a pass to as long as the candidate doesn’t try to run on the issue. If Rudy was running as the Champion of the 2nd Amendment, I’d call him a phony and hate him, too. But he’s not. He’s running on issues that he’s always been strong on: taxes and terrorism. Romney is running on social issues. He is a phony. Romney is the guy that promoted his candidacy at gay pride parades and insisted that he’d maintain the status quo of abortion law in MA. He changed his positions to run for the presidency and cooked up a phony, believable story to sell an electorate that isn’t going to scrutinize him.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:37 am
…in the end, people will reject your pointless, baseless claims that Romney (married to the same woman for 40 years) is a phony, and accept that Rudy (ill have an affair with anyone…
:hand on face: I cannot believe that this is how you choose your candidate for the Presidency. I just cannot freaking believe it. We are not electing the Family Man in Chief. What does it have to do with the presidency!? And don’t give me stupid “it says something about him” — Well, WHAT does it say about him and WHAT does it have to do with the job?
December 17th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Regarding the whole Mormon voting block staying home issue. I agree there is not much sense pursuing that line of debate, but I think the point that husky is trying to make (correct me if I am wrong husky) is that Mormons in this election cycle feel completely rejected by the Evangelicals that we have so often sided with in many other areas, (disaster relief, etc.) including voting, in previous election cycles. The fact that this one has a Mormon running, and one who has a shot at winning, and the Evangelicals have let their claws come out AGAINST us, is disheartening at best. The argument can be made that they are allowing theology to cloud the fact that we share the same values based on voting records in previous elections. But, I move on to other comments
December 17th, 2007 at 1:42 am
TLG-
im only going to prove you wrong tonight one more time. Its getting late and you give me a headache but here goes.
Nevada had 167,822 mormons in 2005
Bush won 418,690 to Kerry 397,1990 for a difference of about 20,000. If mormons of voting age HAD STAYED HOME in NV that day, Kerry would have won. 2000 it would have gone to GORE too.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Arizona had 355,473 mormons in 2005
Bush got 1,104,294 to Kerrys 893,524 for a difference of about 200,000. Kerry could have won Arizona too had mormons stayed home.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:45 am
New Mexico had 62,572 in 2005
Bush got 376,930 and Kerry had 370,942
Again, had we stayed home and not voted for a candidate whos theology I disagreed with, Kerry would have won.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:46 am
TLG,
I see your point, and I agree with the logic. Where we will have to agree to disagree is where you say, “Romney is running on social issues.” I don’t feel that he is running solely on social issues as say, . . Huckabee is. Regarding his promoting his candidacy at gay pride parades, you have to consider his constituency. The electorate in MA is made up of gays, and pro-choicers. The point of attack against him has been that he has said, “I will maintain the status quo regarding abortion” To his constituency, that was an important issue. I think his point was to say he was not in favor of abortion personally, but he would not let his personal views on abortion dictate how he would govern with regards to changing current laws in MA, etc. Granted, that is how a Romney supporter will see things ;).
December 17th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Ditto for Colorado and IA too where the margin of victory was less than the total # of mormons in that state. So stop marginalizing a voting block of 6+ million members that votes overwhelmingly republican. You will want us around in future elections. This race shouldnt be about when blacks recieved certain blessings in the mormon church just as it shouldnt be about Catholic priests and pedaphilia. The primary process is a vetting process, and your boy Rudy is was the man of the year in 07. Congrats to him on that. Too bad voters chose a president in 08, where he will