GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Of course, as we have noted here on several occasions — Mitt Romney seems to be following the Ronald Reagan 1976 playbook. His CPAC speech has been compared to Reagan’s ‘76 convention speech — and now — his endorsement is being compared to Reagan’s support of Ford …
But while Ronald Reagan’s loss — and his re-birth in ‘80 — is a fairly recent model to use as a comparison, the archetype is almost as old as time. As Jung would put it, this entire narrative has long been a part of our “collective unconscious.”
In essence, whether he’s doing it consciously. or not, Mitt Romney is seeking to tap into a mythological narrative called the “Hero’s Journey.”
If you’ve read Arthur or the Odyssey — or have seen Star Wars or Rocky — you are familiar with the idea. Before reaching the “promised land,” a hero must first endure his “wilderness years.” This is essentially a right of passage or initiation (I’ve written that Mitt Romney finally passed his “Initiation” into the conservative movement.)
Of course, the last stage of the “Hero’s Journey” is when the hero reaches his destiny and in a sense, rises from the dead. If you’re a movie fan, this is the part when Rocky finally wins or when Han Solo and Luke Skywalker are given their awards. Or if you like politics, it’s the day Reagan wins after everyone thought he was finished in ‘76.
In Mitt Romney’s scenario, he becomes the Republican standard-bearer, and ultimately is elected president.
(I should add, Rudy has been a spectacularly gracious loser as well)
Mike Huckabee is rapidly showing all the nasty characteristics that I warned everybody about. See here, his response to Mitt Romney’s gracious endorsement of John McCain. Huck whines that Romney “attacked” him — ignoring that all of Romney’s negative ads, etc., were absolutely 100% issue-based — while trying to play the martyr who never made a personal attack on Romney. Of course, Huck is the guy who repeatedly did attack Romney in personal terms, especially raising questions about Romney’s religion. The crack about Mormons believing weird things about Satan, etc., remains the lowest blow of any campaign this year. Gimme a break.
I have no love for Huckabee, I won’t deny it, but I could have if he had shown perhaps an inkling of gentlemanship these last week. He could have kept running without attacking Romney, yet he shows no signs of stopping. Mitt’s out, no longer a threat and all Huckabee can do is lob bombs at Romney- back handed and front handed. Last night on O’Reilly, Huckabee made the laughable assertion that it’s ironic that the two candidate who are left in the race are the ones who ran the most civil campaigns! Is he nuts? I think the civility awards would actually go to Ron Paul who has been fair to every candidate and Rudy Giuliani.
I am not sure what specific action of Huckabee shows him to be a person of good character. I am not saying (at east here) that he is not but what shows that he is? As a matter of fact, I can’t think of one scenario in which he has shown the ability to work for the common good. I would love to be proven wrong, but so far all I have seen is a guy who remains in the race so he can continue kicking around the guy who dropped out for the good of the party.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
You know Jason, if Huck and Romney’s roles were reversed you’d be writing about how Huck is a quitter and Romney is Sir Galahad.
This is just another installment of “I love Mitt! I hate Huck!”
No matter what Mitt! does, you will love it and him. No matter what Huck does, you will hate it and him.
It’s called identity politics.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
MWS,
Is it just possible that you are projecting even just a little?
February 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
It should be clear to everyone that Romney is angling for a VP spot
February 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Huckabee is going around today saying that if he endorsed McCain, he wouldn’t have to take acting lessons, insinuating that Romney is being fake about his endorsement. If he would bother to listen to Romney’s endorsement he would see that he is saying nothing that he doesn’t feel. Romney continues to say that he has many disagreements over McCain’s policies but that he feels that the war is most important and that John McCain would do the right thing. There is nothing in his endorsement that is an act or false. I am honestly tired of Mr. Huckabee revising history with his lies. . . .very tired of it.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
MWS
“if Huck and Romney’s roles were reversed you’d be writing about how Huck is a quitter and Romney is Sir Galahad”
Your logic is terrible and you miss the point becuase of it. THe fact is Romney DID leave graciously and Huck IS NOT. Your logic is like suggesting that if Hitler wasn’t a bad guy he would have been a good guy.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Huck has been denied getting more delegates than Mitt…since Mitt has endorsed McCain. Why does Huck have to say that Mitt is not sincere in endorsing McCain….I thought he believed in not judging someone elses heart…oh that doesn’t apply to Huck.
Huck has no class….it has nothing to do with identity politics….. everything to do with class…something Huck doesn’t know anything about. Huck’s in this for the personal money gain…nothing else.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I’m a Romney supporter. But I don’t think he did himself any good today by endorsing McCain. Not all of his supporters are happy with his mood.
In fact, a great many Romney supporters are now considering backing the Libertarian Party candidate.
McCain has little if any appeal to fiscal conservatives and libertarian Republicans.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
marK,
Seriously, when have the hard core Rombots on this site criticized Romney for anything besides strategy? It’s like a never ending man-crush. I swear, the only thing that Mitt! could do to draw criticism from his amen choir here is to renounce Mormonism.
As for me “projecting,” I do not identity with Huckabee’s Church. While we are both Christian, I left evangelicalism and would argue religion and Scripture with him ’til the cows came home. I don’t think he is a perfect candidate. I was quite disappointed when he went hard core on immigration, for example.
Is there anything about Romney, aside from strategy and a failed campaign, that you, Jason, or any other Rombot would criticize Romney for?
I think this could be a healthy exercise.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
8 MWS - HELLO? read #7
February 14th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Eric,
I couldn’t disagree more that Romney did himself no good today. this is what “honored opposition” does. You fight the good fight and then, when it is clear one has won, you come together as best you can for the good of the party. Sleezabee never has and never will understand honor. You are correct that many of Mitt’s supporters won’t support McCain, myself among them. That doesn’t mean that Romney’s endorsement wasn’t the proper and honorable thing to do.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
bulldozer,
“THe fact is Romney DID leave graciously and Huck IS NOT. Your logic is like suggesting that if Hitler wasn’t a bad guy he would have been a good guy.”
It’s not a question of logic. It’s an observation. To Jason and Co. Romney can do no wrong. If Romney pooped on national TV they would be singing his hosannas. In other words, Romney is considered gracious for what he did (objectively), what he did is considered gracious because Romney did it.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
bulldozer,
” HELLO? read #7″
Glory, Hallelujah!!!!!
Now read the opening post, #4, #6, #10, and many more to follow…..
February 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
So how about Rombots?
Anybody brave or honest enough to criticize Dear Leader about anything other than strategy or a failed campaign? You can’t do him any more damage this cycle, and no one will remember your words come 2012.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
MWS,
Romney showed today he can, or at least attempt to move beyond the bitterness of the past. Are you going to let Romney be a better person than you?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Ah Huck! Can’t wait to see you take the Tucker slot on MSNBC for the next four years!
February 14th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
MWS- what did you leave evangelicalism for? Not going to flame you for it (I actually like a lot of your comments), just curious.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“Is it just possible that you are projecting even just a little?”
The grown-up version of “I’m rubber and you’re glue.”
Projection is a BS, discredited Freudian theory.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Brian,
I’m Catholic.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
hmmmmm- failed campaign= 1. started as a nobody
2. had all of the MSM making constant attacks on you to
build up their candidates
3. had other candidates gang up on you because it
was the only way they could defeat you
4. endured vicious attacks against your religion
5. made contrast adds and then had some other candidates do contant
backhanded and direct personal attacks, even after you dropped out
6. almost won florida until big endorsements came out to
endorse your opponent to help him pull it out
7. won 11 states (oh yeah and West Virginia that was taken from you)
8. dropped out for the good of the party
9. won the CPAC endorsement even after you dropped out
10. was man enough to get over the lies and atacks from your
opponent to endorse him and man enough to go around
campaigning for him for the good of the party and the nation
February 14th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
marK,
“Romney showed today he can, or at least attempt to move beyond the bitterness of the past. Are you going to let Romney be a better person than you?”
What I’m asking for is intellectual honesty. And quite frankly, the dripping hero worship that Romney receives from many on this site is positively creepy sometimes.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Linda,
“Failed campaign” as in HE DIDN’T WIN.
I think that is a fair definition, considered the WHOLE POINT OF THE CAMPAIGN wasn’t realized.
But your post #19 is kind of reinforcing my point. Is there ANYTHING that Romney can do wrong?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I watched McCain on Larry King tonight and it reminded me of that Tide spot remover commercial from the Super Bowl. I could hardly pay attention to what McCain was saying because I was focusing on his face, which seemed to be made of old parchment. It was cracking and peeling, and full of crevices. Its no surpise that the first question King asked was, “Are you up to this?”
To state the obvious, McCain never stood on a stage with just one opponent, so the voters have not had the side by side contrast of McCain with a younger opponent. I don’t think its a good thing that the first time the voters see such a comparison will be during the general election.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Bonham, you have lost all credibility. All you do is use this forum to rant about mormonism and claim that Huck is some anti-mormon bigot. Please talk politics or don’t talk. Romney is out. Please refrain from wearing your cult on your sleave.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
#21,
You want us to be honest, don’t you?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Brian,
And thank you for the compliment.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Linda,
Has Romney done anything wrong? If so, could you give me an example?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
TLG #17,
Let me tell you a personal story of mine.
I once had a roommate that I could not get along with. Quite frankly, I hated his guts. The feeling was mutual. But because of our contract, there was no way we could get out of sharing the same apartment for a number of months. We were stuck with each other.
To try to resolve the problem, we agreed to make a list of the five things we hated the most about each other. We would then rank them in order of severity.
I very carefully made out my list. He carefully prepared his list. Then we compared lists.
They were the exactly the same, right down to the order we had placed them in.
I learned an important lesson that day. I learned that the traits we find the most annoying in others are often our own that we see mirrored back.
So when you find yourself disliking someone, it is always a good idea to carefully consider whether or not what you are reacting to are your own faults being reflected back in him.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I will tell you one thing that bothered me. Im the last debate where John McCain kept bringing up time tables tons of times, I thought Romney should have done what I do with my teenagers: not let him keep dragging a ridiculous discussion out. He should have stated the exact words that he used in the interview, defended himself, and then said it deserves no further discussion.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Jason Bonham — Is Mymanmitt.com and fivebrothers.com going to stay online forever and forever?
Not to mention the other Romney websites that are now totally obsolete.
Time to move on !
February 14th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
MarK,
I’ve mentioned something I didn’t like about Huckabee. I could give you more. Is there any mortal flaw you’ve ever detected in Romney?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Linda,
Okay. That’s progress. You say that Romney wasn’t aggressive enough in his own defense at the last debate. Is there anything in his thinking, or any substantive decisions that he’s made regarding philosophy or policy which with you disagree? Or is a debate tactic the only point on which you two disagree?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
MWS,
Why is it so important to you to get people to tear down their candidate? Just curious.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
MWS,
Of course Romney has done things I have disagreed with. Hey, I’ve done tons of things I disagree with. But if we are going to start holding everyone including ourselves accountable for every single thing that they do which disappoints us, it would be a sorry world to live in, a very sorry world indeed.
To bring a little theology into it, In Matt 7:1 Christ warns us against judging others. In the very next verse he says that the standard we use to judge others is the standard by which we, ourselves will be judged.
I want to be judged by the most lenient, forgiving standard as possible. Don’t you? So I try to be forgive and forget.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Linda,
It’s not a question of tearing down another candidate. It’s a question of me knowing that you know that your candidate is not perfect. It is a question of reassuring myself that the Romney campaign is not as cultish as it sometimes appears. If you can’t bring yourself to disagree with the guy on a single issue, and there is nothing about his philosophy or thinking with which you have a problem, I would seriously suggest you take a harder look. The guy is not infallible. He is not an oracle. None of the candidates are. Mine included.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
marK,
“To bring a little theology into it, In Matt 7:1 Christ warns us against judging others. In the very next verse he says that the standard we use to judge others is the standard by which we, ourselves will be judged.”
Christ is speaking of judging others’ souls, not their actions or thinking. If it were wrong to judge others’ actions or thinking, then St. Paul sinned gravely numerous times in the very Epistles that we consider inspired Scripture. Further, your understanding of this verse has never stopped you from criticizing other candidates, why does it come so quickly to mind when you are asked to express one disagreement you have with Romney?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
# 33 Mark:
Was # 1 on your roommate’s listing quoting a Bible verse in a political discussion?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
C’mon, guys. I will sincerely gain so much respect for the intellectual honesty of Rombots everywhere if one or two of you could JUST GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF SOME SUBSTANTIVE DISAGREEMENT YOU HAVE WITH ROMNEY!
His campaign is NOT a cult! Don’t act like it!
February 14th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
marK,
If I say that I disagree with Hillary’s health care plan, have I sinned, according to your understanding of Matthew 7:1?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I don’t think anyone thinks Romney is infallible or perfect. It just does no good to tear him down when we agree on more issues with him than anyone else. There is no perfect person and no perfect candidate.
I find it amusing when people find it odd that many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints voted for Mitt. In my opinion, there was no other choice. I would have gladly voted for Thompson, just as I have supported other conservative candidates in the past, but his was not a viable campaign. Although I had my own reservations about Romney’s change from his Massachusetts pro-life position, I listened to his explanation and reviewed his record in Massachusetts on that, as well as his Push for the marriage ammendment, etc. and I found that he most closely fits my beliefs. It is a no brainer for me.
I have watched him throughout this campaign and have watched way too much tv with great interest in which many of the pundits have tried to discredit him and beat up on him. Despite all he has endured, he has conducted himself graciously and honorably IMO.
Now that he is out of the race, I will vote for John McCain, despite my dislike of some of his positions, because he will represent our views more closely than Barack or Hillary, hands down.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Okay, I’ll try to get the ball rolling (again).
Here are four problems I have with my candidate, Mike Huckabee.
1. I liked his stance on dealing with illegal immigrants who are already in this country better as governor than as presidential candidate.
2. I disagree with his use of the death penalty.
3. I think SOME of his clemencies were too lenient.
4. I wish he had been more specific in his foreign policy, in particular, whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, and whether he would, knowing what we know now. He was too ambiguous in this regard.
Now, do any Rombots wish to step up to the plate?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Linda,
“I find it amusing when people find it odd that many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints voted for Mitt. In my opinion, there was no other choice.”
That’s an interesting statement. Why do you think that Mormons in particular had no other choice than Romney? Did Methodists, Baptists, and Catholics have a choice?
February 14th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
IMO Rommey was the most viable candidate for anyone who is conservative, including Methodists, Baptists, and Catholics, if they are really looking for someone who fits their values. Unfortunately, people vote for various candidates for many reasons.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
MWS:
Romney’s got issues aplenty. I would have voted for him but let’s face it….there were issues.
1) His wealth has been both good and bad…it lends the impression that he knows nothing about what real people face every day. Family videos showing him taking the boat out for a run does nothing for the average guy living paycheck to paycheck.
2) He was overly concerned about a “macaca” moment. When he saw his Dad’s campaign go down in flames over the “I was brainwashed” comment it burned an indelible message into him…”Be cautious…don’t say anything crazy and don’t offend anyone.” As a result, he softens his views for every audience. He doesn’t want to go “all in” on almost anything. This hurt him badly against McCain. I would have loved to see Mitt stand up hard for something…yes it’s risky…but it helps with the authenticity thing.
3) Same theme…Tell it like it is…machine guns don’t belong in big cities….who cares if that costs you the NRA endorsement. You can still say that you like to take a 22 out and shoot cans when you are in Utah. Be real. Say what you believe. The closest he came to this was some straight talk on “getting married befor having children”
4) Policies…I have very few criticisms. He was so on the money on so many things.
With that criticism…I think Mitt has a bright future. He needs to be a little more forceful regarding what he believes, take a bit of risk, and be willing to lose a few fair weather friends to make everyone understand where he is coming from.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
It will be nice when we don’t have to hear any more of this Mormon crap.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I disagreed with what I assume Huckabee’s position on Iraq was.
I think Iraq was a serious mistake that has damaged our security.
However that doesn’t mean I’m a Ron Paul surrender monkey.
Once we enter a fight we often have to see it through to stability.
I disagreed with Huckabee on the frequency and breadth of his clemencies.
As a hated “evil” Calvinist, I didn’t follow Huckabee for his feel good Evangelicalism. It was a bit annoying when people assumed I was an Evangelical because I supported Huckabee.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
MWS: I’m thinking….give me time!
February 14th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Linda,
“IMO Rommey was the most viable candidate for anyone who is conservative, including Methodists, Baptists, and Catholics, if they are really looking for someone who fits their values. Unfortunately, people vote for various candidates for many reasons.”
So why did you specifically and only mention Mormons?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Illinois,
“I’m thinking….give me time!”
LOL!!!
February 14th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
EGS,
I was with you ’til the Calvinist part.
BTW, are you a four pointer, or a five pointer?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
41,
My problem with Huckabee….he didn’t stop when he had a good thing going.
He was drumming up the populist message…I liked it. He has some conservative bona fides and those were working too.
But then, when he saw the prize get close, he couldn’t resist sliming whomevever he perceived as his biggest obstacle. That was usually Romney but in SC it was Fred Thompson. He did it an way that was thoroughly unappealing. It’s one thing to say a guy raised fees and that’s just like taxes…that’s a legit political point. It’s one thing to say you don’t like a guy’s health plan. All legit points.
It’s another thing to imply that an opponent is like the guy that “laid you off” or that he’s “dishonest” or that that he’s a “whiner” or that “he’s constipated” Those type of comments and insinuations that Huckabee made are so thorougly unpresidential that I’d need to see some major Huckabee bridge building before I’d ever consider voting for him.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
MWS,
Your accusations don’t hold water as many of us have criticized Mitt in the past. It is all too easy claim cult behavior and I’m sure you enjoy doing so but that doesn’t make it the case. I for one wasn’t a huge fan of Mitt version 94. I also think he should have kneecapped Huckabee a lot sooner in Iowa. I also think he should have been more of a “conservative” than a “where is my bible” Huckabee type conservative. Of Mitt isn’t perfect but he was the best man in the field without any reservations.
Huckabee on the other hand was not. I have detailed elsewhere some of my qualms with the man.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mcon/2007/dec/11/more_of_that_huckabee_taste_in_the_mouth
There was nothing honorable about McCain’s preflorida attack on Romney and there was nothing honorable in defending that attack even when the liberal NYT and the vast majority of the Media agreed it was bull. Surprisingly enough, Huckabee was very keen on defending McCain and attacking Mitt just as he has been doing for a few months now. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Huckabee continues to attack Mitt even after he has dropped out of the race.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Sam,
Thanks for the response. When you say you would have voted for Romney, does that mean you voted for someone else, or that your state has not voted yet?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
MWS- I’ve been a Rombot from the first day I started looking at the campaign and I personally think about a half-dozen comments, such as the sons serving their country by helping him out, the one dealing with there not being enough Muslims in the country to warrant a cabinet position, and a couple of others, were just bone-headed stupid. I also think it was a foolish move for the campaign to outline some stark social conservative positions right as the country was getting to know the guy for the first time. It meant that the first thing people heard about Romney was “flip-flop”. A few comments and that bad move is what did his campaign in.
But despite a few ill-thought out answers and a bad strategy move, he’s still the best man to lead this country. No doubt about that in my mind. Now will you please shut up?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
4 pointer. Just like Luther and… Calvin. Yeah Calvin didn’t buy limited atonement either.
Not that it makes much of a difference with the vast Arminian majority in America.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Andrew,
“Now will you please shut up?”
No. But I will always take suggestions. Thanks for your response.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
EGS,
I really wish we could sit down over a few beers sometime, and talk theology.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
This is only tangentially related to this post, but if you are comfortable with Rudy as VP, you should be talking him up right now. McCain would pick him in a heartbeat if he figured that conservatives could handle a McCain-Giuliani ticket. Rudy would probably accept it, out of ambition and respect for his friend. Draft Rudy for VP!
February 14th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
We’ll compromise then. Good enough.
I’m curious about your thoughts on Huckabee’s comment to the New Yorker dealing with Mormons believing that Jesus and Satan are brothers, as well as the many underhanded insinuations from his surrogates trying to paint Romney’s faith as less-than-Christian. Did you support those?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I think some of Mitt’s comparison ads were on subject matter that could have been left unsaid, or at least that he aired them too many times.
I think he should have called Thompson as his running mate about 4 days before Super Tuesday.
I think while McCain was lying about his fiscal record as governor a few days before he Florida vote, taht Mitt should have made a very strong and loud defense, and set the record state. He let Mccain and his surrogates claim he has raised taxes by 750 million when he had raised fees by 230 million. And while defending make sure everyone knew that he went from a few billion in debt to 1-2 billion surplus. That puts those fees in better perspective.
I think he should have hit the immigration thing, but not everyday forever and ever.
As far as the issues, and his conduct and being presidential, I can’t think of anything other than ancient history statements.
I think he should have told the joke about his wife’s wildest dreams fewer times
February 14th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Illinoisguy-
agreed on the wildest dreams joke. It got old to me about halfway through the summer, and he just kept on using it.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Andrew,
“I’m curious about your thoughts on Huckabee’s comment to the New Yorker dealing with Mormons believing that Jesus and Satan are brothers, as well as the many underhanded insinuations from his surrogates trying to paint Romney’s faith as less-than-Christian. Did you support those?”
Without the ability to crawl into Huck’s mind, my gut tells me that he was (in a moment of poor judgement) being wry. I don’t think he could have assumed that the reporter was going to delve the issue in a major expose, hence, driving a wedge between Christians and Romney. But I do think he was being wry.
As to your second point, I think that Mormonism denies certain unbreakable tenants that are essential to Christianity. Hence, I do not consider the LDS to be a Christian group. Whether that should matter to voters? Well, if Romney were Catholic (like me) and Huck were Mormon, I’d still support Huck. But I can understand why it matters to people.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
43 Not sure if Romney’s wealth really turned people off.
They never flaunted money–many people own boats.
The Romneys were down to earth people, no jazz, no $25 million mansion here and there, just very nice
large homes for the large family to enjoy.
Romney’s wife Ann for example does not look or dress the part of a wealthy wife.
Cindy McCain, on the other hand, oozes money, style, designer clothes and appearance, and
appears a bit showy, but very pretty.
My point is that Ann was very appealing to majority of women, who relate to her in every way, even
sympathizing with her struggle with ms.
Ann Romney was a real woman, like Barbara Bush or Laura Bush. No fancy packaging, and that is lovely!
February 14th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Illinois,
“As far as the issues, and his conduct and being presidential, I can’t think of anything other than ancient history statements.”
I guess we’ll have to disagree about the definition of “ancient.” Thanks for the response, though.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“Well, if Romney were Catholic (like me) and Huck were Mormon, I’d still support Huck. But I can understand why it matters to people.”
That’s definitely a good thing to hear. I’m Catholic as well, but I live in a rather evangelical town in Iowa. A lot of people voted for Huckabee and against Romney on religion, and it made me embarrassed to be an Iowa Republican. You can a fair amount of the Huckabee supporters here if they would still have voted for Huck if he was a Mormon preacher, and they just get these looks on their face and say “well of course not!” before realizing what they’re saying.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Which unbreakable tenets? Trinity? If so, the Christians of the New Testament and first few hundred years wouldn’t qualify either. They believed the New Testament accounts of the relationships between God the Father, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Illinois,
The Nicene Creed states that we believe in “Jesus Christ, the only Son of God. ETERNALLY begotten of the Father. God from God. Light from Light. True God from True God. Begotten, NOT MADE. ONE IN BEING WITH THE FATHER.”
Also, while Christ is fully man (as well as fully God), he will always remain fundamentally “other” from even the saints. We cannot be exactly what Christ is. Finally, the early Church, did NOT have the LDS understanding of the Trinity. I would point you specifically to St. Irenaeus in “Against Heresies.”
February 14th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
MWS,
My point that I have been trying to make is that I prefer to concentrate on the positive things and leave the negative things in the dust. Dredging up all the fine points where I have disagreed with Romney or found fault with his actions or words serves no useful purpose that I can think of. He is human. I am human. We both make mistakes. And the point is?
He has withdrawn his candidacy. It is over. So why dwell upon the past?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
marK,
If you can’t bring yourself to make even a slightly critical observation of the guy, that’s your prerogative, but can we agree that being critical of someone’s philosophy, thoughts, or actions has nothing to do with the Scripture you quoted?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
MWS- So Mormonism is not Catholicism, even ancient Catholicism. But I would argue that any religion that holds Christ as the Son of God is essentially “Christian”.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Andrew,
Not one that denies the essential relationship of the Trinity, one God in three Persons, of one nature. Not one that claims that we can become as Christ is. Also (and I don’t claim to be an expert here), my understanding is that what the LDS means by “Son of God” which you consider the sine non qua, is essentially different from what the Church has always understood. The Church teaches that Christ is ETERNALLY begotten of the Father. He, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, have always been, and always will be. There never was when Christ was not. My understanding of the LDS is that they teach that there WAS a time when Christ was not, that He was created at a point in time by the Father. This is a fundamental and essential difference in our understanding of the nature of God.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Citing an early Father 130-200 years AD doesn’t shed a lot of light on what those living at the time of Jesus and immediately thereafter believed:
We do know that all three were at Jesus’ baptism as separate and distinct Entities
We know that Jesus was not praying to himself in the Lord’s prayer, nor in the garden of Gethsemene, nor his plea on the cross.
We know that after his resurrection, he continued to refer to his father in heaven; he said ‘I go to my Father, and to your Father, and to my God, and to your God.
We know that even after his ascension into Heaven, Stephen saw him in vision sitting at the right hand of God the Father.
We know literally hundreds of other things in the scriptures that clearly differentiate Jesus from God the Father, including the first two verses in Hebrews that show Jesus was actually the creator, under the direction of the Father. So even in the premortal, mortal, and post mortal life of Jesus there are plenty of indications that he is not the same personage as God the Father. He is, however fully Divine, but is the only begotten Son, not the Father himself.
If it were not for the coming forth of the creeds, this would have been very much more clear to the world today.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I’m not going to delve into the very specifics and language parsing, but my point is that in order to differentiate Mormonism from other Christianity, you really have to delve into specifics. Even if they have a different view of the nature of Christ, it’s still a very Christ-oriented religion. If you put a Mormon, a Catholic, and a Muslim in a room and had them talk about theology, the Mormon and the Catholic would be agreeing on all the basics real fast.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
guys, go to a religion forum…why do all the Mitt posts turn into theological debates?
February 14th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Illinois,
One God, three Persons. They are three distinguishable persons, as the Scripture you cite will attest, but there is also an essential unity there as well. The Scripture you site must be reconciled with Christ claiming that “I and the Father are one,” and that “He who has seen me has seen the Father.”
At root, it is a mystery that none of us can fully comprehend (we are talking about God after all), but you go too far in denying the unity of the Trinity.
At any rate, I think we have established that we have a fundamentally different understanding of the Trinity. I contend that because of this fundamental difference, we cannot both be Christian. Obviously, I think I am right (or I wouldn’t adhere to my beliefs) and you think you are right. We may now mutually anathematize each other.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Andrew,
“If you put a Mormon, a Catholic, and a Muslim in a room and had them talk about theology, the Mormon and the Catholic would be agreeing on all the basics real fast.”
But our mutual points of disagreement with Islam is hardly the standard of Christianity. Were I in a room with a Muslim and a Buddhist, I would be agreeing more with the Muslim. Does that mean we are both Muslim, or both Christian? Of course not. The standard of Christian belief is what the Church has always taught, specifically and concisely laid out in the Nicene Creed.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Andrew,
There were other “Christ centered” religions that I would not consider Christian, such as the Manicheans, the Marcians, the Arians, and various Gnostic sects.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:04 am
#47,
Because in #37 you say, “It is a question of reassuring myself that the Romney campaign is not as cultish as it sometimes appears.” which led me to believe you are equating Romney followers with cults, as some people often do of Mormons.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Well, good night, all. I appreciate the responses, even if I didn’t get any Romney supporters to disagree with him on a single issue. I hope to one day get a response from Jason on the question.
Thanks for the back and forth, everyone.
God bless.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Yes, MWS, but Christ also invited us to be one with one another even as he and the Father are one. So, to take that as some literal verse to overrule all other scriptural passages indicating they are separate, simply makes no sense.
‘The standard of Christian belief is what the Church has always taught, specifically and concisely laid out in the Nicene Creed.’
Always taught? Excuse me, but I think that was several hundred years after Christ when that creed came forth, and there was a whole lot of arguing taking place about the wording of the several creeds.
One more point, under your logic we could just as easily call you non Christian. We don’t do that, because though we differ on specifics, we believe in the same Jesus Christ, and the same Father in Heaven, and at least we endeavor to pray under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and seek his guidance.
Ok, I’m done. You questioned our Christianity, or I would never have started.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Huckabee was quoted as saying “I’m disappointed in the way he [Romney” ran his campaign. He attacked me, and when we pointed out his record, he always said it was a personal attack… If you throw fastballs, you had better expect a few when you step up to the plate.”
This was bad timing on Huckabee’s part however Romney spent $millions in TV ads attacking Huckabee in Iowa, as he did McCain in New Hampshire. The TV ads against McCain were so vicious and of a personal nature that you actually ended up feeling sympathetic for McCain. Veterans groups were outraged at the nature of Romney’s TV attack ads and that was the beginning of the end for Romney in New Hampshire. He had been leading in polls there.
Some of Romney’s contributors also contributed very substantial sums to the Club for Growth PAC which spent hundreds of $thousands in TV attack ads against Huckabee in each of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. McCain could probably guess he was next to receive the Club for Growth PAC attacks ads if he didn’t win decisively in Florida.
McCain started to point in debates and campaign speeches that Romney’s record as Governor was not typical of a conservative. That is factually accurate - Romney substantially raised taxes for example, although the Democratic legislature cut his third round of tax increases in half.
However McCain I don’t believe ran any negative TV attack ads and neither did Huckabee. Those are the facts that the Romney supporters totally ignore to present Romney like some kind of conservative saint! Fortunately southern Republican voters had no such illusions about Romney, and rightly questioned why liberal Massachusetts would elect a “conservative” Governor!
February 15th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Chris,
Actually they did. How about Huck’s infamous press conferance? And how about McCain’s add touting all the hit peices from the New Hampshire papers?
Romney did nothing that wasn’t done by the other campaigns. I never once though saw an ad where Romney questioned peoples integrity or core values. I did see McCain do that,and I did see Huckabee use religous attacks and class warfare.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:42 am
MWS -
I think Mitt doesn’t have nearly as robust a respect for Federalism as I would prefer. It shows in his education policy (saying he liked NCLB) and occasionally popping up elsewhere.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:45 am
MWS, Romney has plenty of problems and is not perfect at all! Nevertheless, he is the candidate I liked the most and was most willing to support this election season. I didn’t get to this page until now, and I don’t think a lot of Romney supporters are posting and reading as much anymore now that Romney is out. Please don’t judge the movement based on a few remaining stragglers.
I’ve documented well the things I like about Romney, he would have made an incredible leader, and “CEO” of the country. He’s a real problem-solver and turnaround artist. He cares about traditional values. He has a thorough understanding of the economy. He is committed to keeping our country strong using conservative philosophy. He pledged to cap spending. He is a tireless worker. He is a consensus builder.
Things I don’t like: he’s not an experienced politician. In a way that might be a good thing, but some of the comments he made showed he lacked experience in the public arena. He also has hardly any foreign policy credentials. Definitely a weakness. He lacked the ability to “close the deal” with conservatives early enough to prove that he was one of them. He wasn’t as good at debating as I expected, he needs to hone more skills to appear more “folksy” without in any way trying to diminish his significant intellect. When he was giving speeches, he focused sometimes too much on the horse-race and not enough on policy. He made dumb remarks. (They all do though). What else… well, he has proven himself to be a very good leader, but what about diplomacy? I don’t really know if he’d be good at that or not.
There how is that?
As far as your Christian argument goes… it’s getting really tiring to hear this debate. Christians of different denominations have all kinds of different interpretations of the scriptures. Many act as if they all have the same belief but they don’t. They may share some elements, but there are LOTS of different interpretations and intellectual traditions in Christianity. Just to name a few, you have Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Apostolic Lutheran, Baptist, Anabaptist, Anglican, Episcopal, Methodist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Reformed Presbyterian, Evangelical, Puritan, Universalist, etc. Among those, there are subtle disagreements about the nature of God.
Mormons put the Jesus of the Bible at the center of their worship. If you don’t consider that good enough to be Christian, that’s fine. There is a different interpretation of the text, but you’ll find different interpretations all over traditional Christianity as well.
You said:
You can’t break this down into a simple “only one of us can be right”. What about baptism? I suppose only one of the Christian denominations has the doctrine of baptism right? Do you see where that path leads?
I suggest we put aside the religious debate, and keep in mind the words of Mitt Romney from his Fatih in America Speech:
February 15th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Chris -
The dirtiest TV spot I saw that actually ran was McCain’s attack ad on Mitt in New Hampshire that did nothing but throw around a bunch of adjectives various papers had attacked him with, “phony” and so on. Not one single policy position mentioned, just character attacks. The slimiest of all was the ad Huckabee “didn’t” run, but showed to the national media anyway, which on top of what McCain’s ad did included blatant lies about Mitt’s record framed as character smears. Not one Mitt ad ever came close to what those did.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Ah, I’m gonna jump on the religious debate bandwagon too! I always find it incredibly odd whenever anyone turns to the Nicene Creed as the definition of Christianity. That’s about the same thing as saying Roe v. Wade is the definition of the original intent of the Constitution. Both are committee created documents with official imprimatur written over 200 years after the original message was given. Tell me that makes sense! If Roe remains in force for 2000 years would that make it any more the correct definition?
February 15th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Since it’s late and I like to keep posting when I’m tired…
I fully recognize that the Creed represents orthodox Christianity - i.e. the generally accepted version. Since I don’t conform to the orthodox, I’m perfectly happy to be labeled a heretic, because that’s what heresy means - deviation from the orthodox. However, I maintain that just as there is such a thing as Christian orthodoxy, there is also a Christian unorthodoxy or heresy. Just because I’m a heretic doesn’t mean I’m not a Christian heretic.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:32 am
No wonder Ann Coulter called Huckabee a snake oil salesman .
February 15th, 2008 at 7:35 am
There’s a good book out about a “Jewish heretic�, but it’s about two thousand years old.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I agree with MWS that I also had discrepancies with the positions of Rudy, my preferred candidate. I also do not see many of the Romney supporters here looking critically at their own candidate. This is perplexing to me, because I’ve never encountered a political candidate that I agree with to such an extent.
This is symptomatic of my general disagreements with Romney. Not only did most of what he said miss the mark in comparison with my own views, the degree to which his supporters insisted that I was simply misunderstanding what he actually meant — a willingness to hear what they wanted to hear rather than hear what he actually said — left me baffled.
For myself, I’ve come to the conclusion that Mitt is simply on the same wavelength as many of his supporters. And those supporters who are the most in sync with Mitt share his religious socialization and culture, which is why they “know” what he means despite what he seems to say. Not that there’s anything wrong with this, but Romney supporters should appreciate the implications of this in coming to terms with why many find Mitt to be more mysterious than inspiring as a potential political leader.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Thank you, PnGrata in #82. An honest answer that goes to my biggest problem with Romney, when he was a candidate. At the same time, he’s won my respect.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Of course, I pretty much liked all the candidates we had, in some fashion… except one.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:38 am
For those who like to call Romney a charlatan, look what McCain said to Larry King:
“Yes, well, he and I share the same principles and values and goals. We’re the party of Abraham Lincoln Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. We had differences on issues, of course. Otherwise we wouldn’t have been running against each other.”
February 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
So why does Huckster feel the need to continue to run against Romney? What is his agenda in this regard?
February 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I’m sick of Huckabee’s underhanded tactics. When an honest observer tries to call him on it, he plays dumb and puts on his “Aw shucks” routine.
***
Huck: Some people wake up on third base and think they hit a triple.
Huck: We want a President like the guy we work with, not the guy that laid us off.
Huck: We want a President that thinks of Main Street more than Wall Street.
Honest: Are you referring to Romney? You don’t like Governor Romney, do you?
Huck: Oh, I’ve never said that.
***
Huck: I’m the *Christian* Leader.
Huck: Don’t Mormons believe something awful and terrible?
Honest: Do you think Mormonism is a cult?
Huck: You’ll have to ask Governor Romney
Huck: Mitt’s religion should not be an issue in this campaign
Huck: Why is everyone always asking me about my religion?
***
Huck: When I endorse McCain, I won’t have to take acting classes and put on an Oscar performance.
Honest: Do you think Romney’s phoney?
Huck: No, no, Mitt’s a fine man.
***
and on and on it goes.
Can the Huck supporters find such double talk from Mitt? No, he focused on contrasting issues, not backhanded insults like Huckabee.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:48 am
#92-
Oh, and as we all know, politicians never say kind things to smooth things over with other politicians.
Never.
I don’t think that one sentence from McCain wipes away all the false impressions and misspeaks Romney had over the course of the last 6 months.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:54 am
#95 (Jess), I don’t think that wipes anything, what i want to everybody knows is that the real charlatan is the other guy.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Mike Huckabee is the most upstanding, inspiring, and decent candidate I’ve seen in a long time. For some of you to sit here and attack him as otherwise just because you don’t agree with his concern for the common man in this country is ridiculous. You try to take everything the man says and twist it and blow it out of proportion to make him into something he’s not and it’s sickening.
I probably wouldn’t vote for Huckabee in a primary, because I don’t agree with him on a few things, but I would be proud of him if he were our nominee in the future and I would be fired up to vote for him. I can’t say the same for Mitt Romney, even though I agree with where he says he stands now.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
#97 - If Huckabee is truly concerned for the common man, he should find a way to act on that concern without inciting class warfare and insulting people who don’t fit his definition of common. He is his own worst enemy because he shoots himself in the foot and loses all credibility in how he delivers his message.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:18 am
PnGrata and Emtee,
Thanks for the responses.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Tommy,
Did you have any substantive disagreements with Thompson?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am
#97
I will give you inspiring. I do enjoy listening to Huck regardless of how I feel about him regarding issues and how he campaigned. But to say that he is the MOST inspiring is a stretch.
MWS
regarding your assertion that a Romney supporter (i don’t consider myself a rombot) can’t objectively find fault, I would only say that many Romney supporters were always pained by his pandering.
However, I don’t want to fall into your trap of outlining all of Romney’s faults.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:37 am
#101
I meant MOST “upstanding”
February 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Linda (#19) Do not forget the surge of Huckabee in Iowa, nor his backroom conferences with pastors there. I think this hurt Mitt the most. There’s nothing Mitt can do about it, really.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
MWS (#20) Give it a rest! Even the campaign analysts (reading, political scientists) recognize that Rommey ran one of the most effective campaigns. He simply do not connect with the voters, for various reasons. His Mormonism Factor certainly is big one. His not being conservative enough when he ran the most liberal state is another, and count all of those attacks as Linda listed in #19. He did the best he could under the circumstance he was in. And he did give everyone the run for their money, or have you forgotten the withdrawings and gang-up among all other candidates?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
huckabee is all about huckabee. just look at his record. its clear. the guy is a loser.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
MWS (#34) I do not agree with Mitt on many of his policies — for instance, his feelings about No Child left Behind being a good policy. I am more of a Paulite when it comes to Federal Government (and a “Democrat” when it comes to state government). But he is the candidate I find myself mostly closely aligned than all other candidates.
There was a political test where you were shown how closely you are aligned with Mitt. I had Mitt as my top candidate, but only at 84% (Talking about Rudy’s “agreeing with me 80% of time” - which is what Mitt has been for me).
February 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
MWS (#41) I believe it is because the church emphasizes on the culture of finacial responsiblity, on the importance of families, and on accepting accountability for personal actions. No other candidate has gone around on those three areas as frequently or as strong as Romney. You can say that Mitt Romney has grown up with the same core fostered in him that is so obvious to those who share the same feelings, AND who do not have an issue with trusting him. With this trust question, his Olympic performance goes a LONG way toward solidifying this trust among Utahns and other neighboring state folks, which is why he has done so well in the western region.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
This thread reminds me of those people who spend tons of time and resources digging up all the dirt they can find on our founding fathers. Then they write papers, publish books, and go on the talk circuit doing everything they can to tear those people down. They simply are not happy until they have done everything in their power to drag their targets’ names through the mud.
I have often wondered at their motivation. Why do they do it?
While Romney, Thompson, Hunter, Guiliani, and others were in the race, they were fair game. They are now out of it. What possible use is it to continue to point out their weaknesses now?
A final quote, taken from the very end of Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:
Shall we give heed to “the better angels of our nature”?
February 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
In the general election, the age issue and Melanoma concern will be brought out to the forefront and the Vice president as running mate will be viewed as President at a moments
notice. I believe Rudy Giuliani fits the bill. He fits Sen McCain’s criteria of how he will
choose his running mate ” he should be qualified to take over immediately, shares my values, philosophy and pririties”
February 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
[...] is almost as old as time. As Jung would put it, this entire narrative has long b source: How to Be a Gracious Loser and How Not to Be, [...]