So a reporter asks about Person A as a potential running mate, and the McCain campaign praises Person A but declines to say anything else specific about him or her. The reporter then goes on to confirm in the press the non-answer and speculates that this means that Person A is now more likely than ever to be McCain’s pick. Somehow, I think I’ve seen this pattern before. In case people haven’t noticed, the McCain campaign is not going to announce the running mate until they announce the running mate. All of these reports are pretty much meaningless.
Chris Matthews also thinks it will be Romney. I think it will either be Romney or an off the wall, maverick pick. Romney’s the conventional wisdom pick. But I can still see McCain throwing out the playbook and picking, oh, I don’t know, Tom Ridge, Lieberman, Petraeus. etc. Those are the sorts of things McCain would do.
Actually all that’s happening is that reporters, talking heads and politcal analysts are realizing that they’d better acknowledge
the reality of a McCain/Romney ticket before their reputations for political predicitons are damaged. I just read an article by
Chris Cillizaa of the WaPost, who has been screaming for months that Romeny would NEVER be picked, who now believes Romeny is
sitting in the #1 spot. So, this is all about protecting their reps, nothing else. It’s been obvious for weeks now. It’s time for eveyone to come to terms with it too.
Agreed Taylor. It’s about hedging bets and covering their behinds now. Romney looks more and more like the pick every day. Check out his Intrade numbers too, they’re just constantly climbing.
#4,
I bet he is - I hope he demonstrates that “independent” edge and picks a VP that will actually help him, rather than hurt the ticket like Romney would do.
I hope the McCain hasn’t been neutered by the establishment already. It would be a shame.
Im not saying Huckabee is the way to go (I think he might be because of the current economic situation) - but I do know that Romney is the wrong pick based on the states in “play”.
If anything kills the evangelicals support for McCain, it would be Romney. Sorry - I tell it like I hear it. The South goes blue, and the north goes purple. Is that a good trade off? I think not.
You will lose a huge valuable electoral sweep in the south, and trade it for a moderate possible single state gain up north or out west (but not both). If you are that lucky.
Uh, I think the Economy is driving the Romney for Veep noise. McCain is great for the Iraq war issue but the Economy? Yikes.
Anyway, I think Rudy G. is strong on the Economy so why not pick him instead? Not that I would hate a Romney pick. I would be happy and excited for one, but I think Rudy gets you more moderates.
The people who are pushing Romney for VP are those who didn’t support McCain during the primaries. Think NRO. They want McCain to serve only one term. So why should McCain listen to such people. The MSM also wants Romney as VP b/c he’ll engender almost no excitement with swing voters and will be a wasted pick. DaveG brought up in the post above that McCain is far behind with women. That’s where the election is. I keep on saying the Sarah Palin will excite women across the country with her story and narrative. If we pick a banal white guy, we may be getting what we deserve.
There is ZERO chance that McCain loses any southern state unless you consider Virginia a southern state and the only way Obama takes that is if he picks Kaine.
On Hardball yesterday Chris Matthews asked the panel if there was any state in which Romney would be a drag on the ticket and they all drew a blank. Then they proceeded to name about 10 states where he would help. This is not a difficult choice and I’m guessing that it has already been made.
I just watched that CBS interview with Romney, and every time I see Romney in that sort of setting, I find ludicrously disappointed that John McCain is our nominee. Romney’s a terrible politician in some respects, but no one gives a better interview, or does better in townhall settings; absolutely no one. I don’t know if Romney actually is moving up on the Veep list, but I wouldn’t be upset if he was. There is something nicely symmetrical about a war hero/economic genius ticket. In fact, I think if Romney hadn’t run for President, and instead had managed to get himself re-elected in Mass, only shifting on the life issue (from pro-choice to pro-life), we wouldn’t even be discussing the VP pick. He’d be the obvious choice.
It’s only because he fought bitterly with McCain in the primary, and sold himself as the “conservative’s conservative” that alot of folks are dismissing him. But, I’m starting to suspect, what with Obama’s egregious flailing, that the electorate has an awfully short memory. There’s probably no reason to believe that Romney can’t, after 6 months out of the spotlight, come back as “Mr. Fix-It, populist (Michigan edition” and do McCain some real good.
________________________________________________
31 pcerent say Mormons are not Christians
17 percent do not know
________________________________________________
favorable Opinion of ;
Jews - 76%
Catholics - 76%
Muslim Americans - 53%
Mormons - 53%
________________________________________________
25% of Americans are less likely to vote for a Morman
#10 Lets say Romney is picked. Would you be happy if your dire predictions such as the south turning blue turned out to be fasle?
Would that be a good development for our party and the country?
#19. No. I would be troubled. But I also dont think McCain can win with Romney. In that case, we have the Big O, and in 2010, we have a conservative house and senate again, and in 2012, who knows, we will probably have a 1980 esk election.
PEW - GOP Evangelicals less likely to vote for a Mormon
Less Likely;
36% White Evangelical protestants
41% who attend church weekly
________________________________________
Are Mormon’s Christian (White evangelical)
Yes - 40%
No- 45%
_________________________________________
“One-word” impression of the Morman religion
#1 - Polygamy/Bigomy
#2 - Family values
3# - Cult
#20, I guarantee to you that if Romney were named VP today, McCain would take the lead in the national polls by the end of the week. Most people in the real world (Republicans, Independents, and Democrats) respect Romney although they may not agree with him on the issues. He is seen as able, competent, and a plausible President should he need to be. Anyone that would not vote for McCain because he picks Romney is already voting for Obama anyway. All he does is bring some of the fence-sitters over.
In the CBS interview, it’s interesting that Romney said one of the things he might have done differently is acknowledge people that are atheist, with no faith at all and how important he thought their contribution was in America and also how important their contribution was in preserving the concept of freedom of religion.
I’ve been all for McCain since it became plainly obvious that Giuliani wasn’t going to become our nominee - but I’m becoming less and less convinced McCain can do this on his own. He looks tired and doesn’t seem to have much interest in any issue besides the war. I was the first to point out that Romney has some negatives - I still believe he does. But I do believe he has some positives too, most notably in NV and perhaps CO.
If the biggest rap against Romney is that the south might be lost then that’s just something I shrug my shoulders at. What are we to do? We have to ALWAYS appease the Evangelicals? Romney is pro-life and anti gay-marriage. That ought to be enough for those so-cons. And frankly, as far as I am concerned, if it’s not then that’s just too bad. We need to look at the trends. If we don’t lose VA this year we’re going to lose it in the next close election. We can’t depends on appeasing the hard-right so-con base in the south forever. Once VA falls, NC will be next. And then GA.
Now if Romney does manage to find himself on the ticket and he turns out to act like Romney v 1.0 - Iowa Caucus Edition, then he’ll deserve to lose. But if Romney, like McCain, can run as a social conservative that doesn’t make a fetish out of so-con crusades, and if Romney can act like Mr. Fix It on the economy, like Matt suggests above, then I’m all for his selection.
The Evangelicals need to grow up. They’re acting like spoiled children. And it’s only gotten worse since Dubya and Rove elevated their importance.
I’m basing my prediction on national poll numbers showing Romney to be a drag on the McCain ticket vs. Obama (usually by more than 5%, btw), and strong indications that independents have a certain distaste for the pandering Romney. Furthermore, the contradictions between McCain’s and Romney’s positions on many issues will bring his multiple changes in position to the forefront. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Interviewer: Reflecting on your faith in America speech, are you glad you made the speech? Do you have any regrets about the speech or that you missed something there?
Romney: I think one of the things I appreciated most about my campaign was not just the chance to meet some wonderful people and make some lifelong friendships but also to give a couple of speeches I thought were pretty important.
I’m glad I got to give the speech on faith in America. It was well beyond the scope of my campaign. It was meant to be broader than that, I think it was.
Romney: I gave a speech just recently talking about what things I’d change if I got a chance to do it again, and I said here is an addendum to that speech. I pointed out that I would have liked to have mentioned that people that don’t have faith also contribute to America and to our history; and that in fact, I think people without faith have as great a stake in making sure that faith in America is kept free as everybody else because they’ll be discriminated against if faith becomes a matter of differentiating among candidates.
Interviewer: You always did mention that subsequently, and I sense you wish you would have added that.
Romney: It was a speech on ‘faith in America’, not ‘non-faith in America’. So I didn’t think it naturally fit in, but I made that point subsequently.
I don’t see McCain picking Romney, especially after running that pro-immigrant commercial recently that zeroed in on Tancredo.
McCain will win this election from the center, and Romney’s the wrong guy for that. His primary season quotes will be used against McCain. And his flip-flops. And McCain’s statements against Romney.
McCain is all about character first, and he hates Romney.
The only way it happens is it McCain has convinced himself it’s the *statesmanlike* thing to do to pick his enemy. That’s a concept that would reasonate with McCain.
But I feel it’s much more likely we’ll see Pawlenty, Ridge, Lieberman, Petreaus, Palin, Fiorina or Meg Whitman. Not that I like all those. That’s just who McCain is comfortable with and who is workable (Rudy meeting the former but probably failing the latter test).
I completely agree with DaveG, which has to be the first time. McCain will either pick Romney or a completely off-the-wall maverick pick just to prove that he is a maverick.
I am past caring much about the VP pick. I’m a Romney fan, but I’m not so sure that the Vice-presidency wouldn’t be a massive waste of his talents. I think it was John Adams, our nation’s first Vice President, who said he couldn’t imagine a more worthless office devised by man. If I am not mistaken, some other V.P. liken it to a bucket of warm spit. It would be better if he actually did something besides sit around waiting for McCain to have a heart attack.
(Of course, given McCain’s age and his fondness for temper trantrums, that may not be that long of a wait.) (-;
#33: Regarding those historical quotes about the VP, that was before the VP became the next frontrunner for Presidential nominee, and before the vastly expanded powers of the VP started by Carter, continued by Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, and even more vastly expanded by Bush II.
In it they lay out McCain’s and Obama’s Veep “archetypes.”
They claim that Mitt Romney is the Jack Kemp parallel (”Like Kemp, Bob Dole’s ‘96 pick, Romney is a former foe who would add economic-policy heft to the ticket.”)
They compare a Pawlenty pick to Sprio Agnew (68), a Palin pick to Geraldine Ferraro (84) and a Bobby Jindal pick to Dan Quayle (92) and a Joe Lieberman pick to Joe Lieberman (2000).
Interested to hear anyone’s comments about these comparisons.
Earlier in the year I was following the election because it was interesting. Now I am following it because I am a little scared about the economy. This is the first economic crisis in my life as and adult. So if Romney or anyone else can make sense of what we are going through and set forth a way to get out it can only be a good thing (regardless of whether the person is mormon or jewish or female or ?).
McCain will win this election from the center, and Romney’s the wrong guy for that. His primary season quotes will be used against McCain. And his flip-flops. And McCain’s statements against Romney.
Immigration
“Timetables” in Iraq
Climate Change
Earmarks
All of these things are important parts of McCain’s agenda (like it or not), and Romney has opposed him on them in the past. Like you said, there’s too much tension on the issues between these two for the selection of Romney to not be a distraction.
McCain could do a lot worse than Romney, but this is all speculation. McCain will pick whomever he wants to pick. In the end, I’ve got to think he’ll pick the person he thinks will help him the most to win the election. Who knows McCain’s mind? I certainly don’t and won’t pretend to.
The economy is forefront on most people’s minds these days. Rather than do the horse race thing as much, I’d like to see some ideas discussed here on what to do about the economy. I keep thinking about getting some canned food storage, something I should have done a long time ago. I’ve also been thinking pretty hard lately about putting in some solar power panels. Both would contribute a lot to feeling self-sufficient.
Do you know how good it would feel to get a bill from the Power Company that shows they owe ME? That would be friggin’ awesome!
Sure were a lot of non-Mormons who voted for Romney in the Primaries, Metro.
That’s awfully rich of you to say that most non-Mormons think he’s got no character. To make a blatantly false statement like that shows some of your own character.
You could certainly argue that “SOME” people think he’s got no character. You could even say “MANY” people think he’s got no character. But that is not what you said.
I would really appreciate if someone of the Mormon faith would confirm if the following statement is true:
“Doctrine and Covenants 84:33-9; Goddesses are always subject to a god. Women are denied the Priesthood (meaning they are denied authority—not the same as Catholic priesthood). “In the LDS universe, theologically described as the real eternal universe, each man who achieves the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is worth many times more than each woman, even the women who qualify at that highest Celestial level, because each man who achieves Godhood-level may have numerous God-wives, but each God-wife may have only one husband. This can only mean that each “heavenly father” is worth many times more than each “heavenly mother.” And, even if the ratio were strictly one to one, the male God, not the female God, holds the priesthood authority and is the only one of the God parents to whom his earth-mortality children are allowed to pray. So Mormon women can never, NEVER achieve equality with men, no matter how outstanding or righteous the women are. That’s just the way it’s set up.” ”
Metro, #36, while that may be true of people’s perceptions of him, I think you’d be very, very hard-pressed to find anyone who knows Romney personally that thinks or has said he lacks character, quite the opposite in fact. Even McCain before the primaries talked a lot about Romney having “integrity and character”. Even Romney’s competition in the business world respect him immensely.
I looked up to Romney long before I ever thought he’d be anything more than a businessman because he has shown a lot of personal integrity in his life, volunteering to do hard work in service to others, treating his employees like equals, sharing the returns in his company with those around him, giving people the benefit of the doubt, and being honorable in his business dealings unlike some business people that lie or cheat to get ahead.
#33: don’t forget also that the vice-presidency during the time of John Adams was simply given to the person who received the second most number of votes in the general election, therefore, it was always a political rival in those early years.
I’m sure there are plenty of theological chat sites you could get lots of people to banter religion with. I’m LDS and am in no way “more equal” than my wife (to quote a certain George Orwell novel).
Besides the obvious silliness of your claim to have followed Mitt’s business career just for the heck of it, the statement that Romney has not lied and cheated to get ahead is completely laughable. Most peoples’ problem with Romney is that he has been so dishonest about his political positions and priorities that no objective observer can say with certainty what he really thinks about these things.
#41 - Mitt’s idea on immigration were only slightly different, namely that those who came here illegally would have no special path to citizenship by having done so.
The ‘timetable’ thing was just a lie. In fact, McCain had made a much stronger statement regarding any support for a timetable withdrawel than Mitt ever made
Climate change will not be nearly as big now because McCain has changed his position on fossil fuels.
Earmarks? How were they different here? McCain in against them, and Mitt sure as heck is. He stated (while smiling) that he likes vetoes, that he has done it hundreds of times.
Anyone got any ideas on how to prepare for a bad economy, or better yet, how to turn this economy around?
I’ve never been so pessimistic about the economy and the country in my life, though I’ve got the best job I’ve ever had and am more financially secure than ever. It’s all rather strange, isn’t it? I just keep thinking (obviously this is all my personal conjecture) that we’ve been greedy and “living beyond our means” (both as individuals and as a country) and it’s coming time to pay the bill and we just won’t be able to.
President Bush had some nice things to say about the economy fundamentals this morning, but I’m worried nonetheless.
Do all these non-mormons who think that Romney has no character also happen to be liberal “Republicans” who don’t like the fact that he ran as a conservative and almost won?
I think John McCain is doing just fine without a VP. He has closed the avg. polls to just about the margin of error and McCain/RNC is outraising the Obama/DNC team. Sp what is there not to be happy about? Plus in most cases, the candidate behind in July ends up being President.
I think McCain will wait until the end of August to select a VP. He is waiting for Obama to select a VP first.
McCain is a much smarter politician than Dole or Bush. McCain knows that you can exploit your opponents weakness with the VP pick. So let us see which voting group Obama leaves vulnerable with his VP pick.
Mitt’s idea on immigration were only slightly different, namely that those who came here illegally would have no special path to citizenship by having done so.
That’s not “slightly different”; it was the center of the whole immigration controversy.
The ‘timetable’ thing was just a lie. In fact, McCain had made a much stronger statement regarding any support for a timetable withdrawel than Mitt ever made
It may have been a stretch of the truth, but they can’t exactly go back on it now.
Climate change will not be nearly as big now because McCain has changed his position on fossil fuels.
Did you see McCain’s “Balance” ad? He mentions climate change in it, and prominently. On the other hand, Romney has stated that he doesn’t believe in global climate change (electoral poison alert!), and has actually attacked McCain for entertaining the possibility in the past.
Earmarks? How were they different here? McCain in against them, and Mitt sure as heck is. He stated (while smiling) that he likes vetoes, that he has done it hundreds of times.
Romney’s strategy for winning Michigan was to promise huge new federal spending on programs specific to the state. He did a similar thing in Iowa with ethanol, but it failed to provide him with a win. While not earmarks, exactly, these kinds of new “programs” are one of McCain’s main issues.
#42 & #46. I prefer, the “OK, thank you” response to claims like that. I was simply curious how someone “all about personal
chracter” could also be a hater?
“Besides the obvious silliness of your claim to have followed Mitt’s business career just for the heck of it, the statement that Romney has not lied and cheated to get ahead is completely laughable.”
Over his career, Mitt has worked with hundreds of companies and thousands and thousands of employees. He has competed against tons of other people and been involved in a great number of business transactions. Find me one statement by one of Mitt’s business competitors or employees or investors that say he cheated them, lied to them, or lacks character. Even in the business failures (that all businessmen have) he did his best to mitigate the losses for all those involved.
And yes, I do claim to have followed his career, is it that hard to believe? Being a businessman myself is it hard to believe that I would follow the career of one of America’s most prominent and successful venture capitalists? Guess I won’t be seeing you at the next private equity summit.
***Breaking News*** According to an anonymous source (that would be me), my dog is now on McCain’s VP shortlist. When questioned about this, my dog announced that he had no idea he was being vetted and for now will concentrate on being my dog, sleeping under the table, and barking at squirrels in the yard. However, he has the charisma, personality, and speaking ability that would make Senator Obama look dull and boring. Based on polling (my own biased poll) he could easily turn Massachusetts red.
Big S # 2 said it perfectly. Everyday there is a new VP who seems to be at the top of the list. One day it is Romney, the next it is Fiorina, then Lieberman, then Pawlenty… The VP race, just like The Bachelor or The Bachelorette makes for some great discussion and sells newspapers. However, the only breaking news announcement that matters is the one given by Senator McCain himself.
I personally suspect it will be Pawlenty, based on the fact that him and Senator McCain are close friends, he appeals to working voters, and is from an important area of the country where McCain would like to pull an upset. Furthermore, he does have executive experience.
I think McCain announces Romney, if he is indeed the pick, on Aug 4th. Get a whole week of press in, right before VP selection Mitt goes to the Olympics….the Olympics in which he helped to turn around in Salt Lake City. Promote him as a “Getting It Done” type of guy.
What does McCain lose by announcing BEFORE Obama? What advantage could Obama have? I mean, if it’s Romney….how would Obama react to give him an edge poltiically??
“America’s most prominent and successful venture capitalists”
I disagree, Romney was a successful venture capitalists, but certainly not one of the most prominent and successful. There are too many billionaires who can claim that title.
“OK, thank you” could mean so very many different things. Now it appears your “thank you” was tongue-in-cheek or even sarcastic. Since I wasn’t sure what you meant, I took your response at face value as though you were simply gathering information and had no judgement on the value of the information Metro had given.
I obviously wanted it known that I didn’t value Metro’s “information” in post #36 very highly.
I apologize that I didn’t understand the subtlety of your post. For all I know, I’ve still not understood it properly. Oh, well.
Big S seems to be very concerned about Romeny’s immigration stance being a deal breaker for him. I wouls like to know which
Republicaname that hasn’t already been voted out of office lines up with McCain on the issue? I suspect he’d have to pick a
Democrat for that one. The immigration would almost certainly eliminate Huckabee who signed the hard lined “send all the illegal
aliens home” pledge and got the endorsement of the leader of the minutemen.
#50 I agree with you. I did not hear much from Bush to give me confidence, though. His administration keeps reacting to crises instead getting in front of them. People on CNBC have been warning for months about Freddie and Fannie, but nothing was done until they both lost 80% of their value. And, frankly, getting out there calling for drilling, which ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, should be left to those seeking re-election. He should be focusing on matters at hand.
And, frankly, getting out there calling for drilling, which ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, should be left to those seeking re-election. He should be focusing on matters at hand.
That the president has waited until now, six months before his presidency ends, to make a real push for drilling - after letting the Democrats beat him into submission for years is one of the major failures of his presidency. The idea that the sixty votes weren’t there in the senate is a cop out.
With so many problems I would figure the best thing Romney could do would be to stay away from the white house till 2012. Then again, I think we are forgetting who is the turnaround specialist. Lets just hope that credit is given where credit is due.
I think Bush’s matter-at-hand at the moment is getting Republicans back in control of Congress and the Presidency. That’s probably why (IMO) he was lambasting the “Democratic-led Congress” this morning. He used that phrase over and over.
I, too, would like to see the bailouts stopped. But then again, I’m not in charge of the US economy. If Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae went down, there’d be a whole lot of people hurting like crazy (financially). I figure the Real Estate Industry lobby would probably put out a murder-for-hire contract on whoever let that happen, too.
I was also thinking today that picking Romney is a lot like Dole picking Kemp.
If Obama picks Evan Bayh, that’s basically like Gore picking Lieberman.
I think Obama may pick Bayh in anticipation of a Romney or Ridge pick by McCain. Ridge puts PA into play and probably ups McCain’s numbers in OH. Romney puts MI into play. Bayh would cancel out Ridge’s adjacent-state impact in OH, and would also help neutralize Romney in MI, especially in the southern part of the state that’s in the Northern IN media markets and that remembers Bayh from the ’90s and remembers how IN voters basically want to elect the guy emperor.
Big S seems to be very concerned about Romeny’s immigration stance being a deal breaker for him. I wouls like to know which
Republicaname that hasn’t already been voted out of office lines up with McCain on the issue? I suspect he’d have to pick a
Democrat for that one. The immigration would almost certainly eliminate Huckabee who signed the hard lined “send all the illegal
aliens home” pledge and got the endorsement of the leader of the minutemen.
There are plenty of Republicans who support McCain-style immigration policies. On the contrary, isn’t the patron saint of anti-immigrant (illegal and otherwise) politicians (Tancredo) basically giving up this year? Aside from the questionable popularity of Romney’s conveniently-adopted hard-line stance on immigration, he’d have to adopt McCain’s position upon taking the place as VP nominee. That would be one extra flip-flop, and would lead to his political principles becoming an even bigger joke than they already are. It will be a distraction that will hurt the campaign.
So the DNC just called me. They wanted to know who I was voting for (McCain) and what the chances were that Obama could
change my mind. I think my exact words were “no chance” Oh it’s so fun to live in a battleground state!
Hearme - Your claims about our attitudes and beliefs toward women could not be further from the truth. Let me ask you this: Let’s say you were interested in becoming a Catholic; would you go to the anti-Catholic sites to learn what they believe? Or, would you find out from them? I would suggest that you stick with the LDS sites or call up the young Elders to find out; no one tries harder than we do to inform people, and we enjoy doing so, so just try staying away from the the lies and half truths put forth on the anti Mormon sites.
I don’t think that’s accurate. According to private equity international, Bain Capital is the 8th largest private equity firm (or 8th most successful). Romney founded Bain Capital. At one point he owned 100% of it’s stock (or something to that effect). I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to claim that Romney was one of the most successful venture capitalists. If he’s not a billionaire today, I suspect that has alot to do with personal choices; going back to Bain and Company for a spell, running the Olympics, running for office, and declining to leave the company with all his assets (I don’t understand this precisely, but there was an article on this point some time ago in a business magazine).
I agree with you. George W. Bush has never been and apparently never will be the unifying Great Leader we all hope for.
#67 - Doug Forrester
I’m feeling long-term malaise. Thanks for helping me put the finger on it. I’ll be fine in the short-run, but get the feeling that this just can’t go on for very much longer before something big, bad, and ugly happens.
#75, from what I understand, Mitt could have walked away with around 8 billions, but decided to spread the wealth, figuring he had all he needed for a while.
#75, I am not questioning Mitt’s credentials, and in fact I think his greatest accomplishment was the SLC Olympics. I am sure everyone remembers Athens Olympics, where the state had to trim back non-Olympic capital expenditures to maintain EU guidlines on debt to GDP ratio, and the fact that final construction was still ongoing during the opening ceremonies.
Mitt was/is a great venture capitalist, but he is not one of the greatest in the nations history, not even is he in the top 100.
That makes sense to me. Both Co-founders of TPG Capital, the 5th largest private equity firm, are worth around 3 billion a piece. At least on paper it doesn’t seem like a substantially more successful firm, and it was founded 8 years later. Romney’s less then 400 million seems curious in that context.
I’m going to assume you have some special knowledge of the world of private equity (I don’t), because sans that your contention just seems odd. He’s the founder of the 8th most successful private equity firm. During his tenure, they realized an average 113% return on investments (or what have you). Objectively this seems to be a tremendous achievement. Yet there are supposedly 100 people in those 7 private equity firms that are more successful then Bain that surpass Romney? Certainly, by all accounts, there’s no one AT Bain who’s more competent and successful then Romney. Very odd. And it’s not as though private equity has a long-history; as best as I can tell, it’s been around for roughly 40 years.
Well this calibre of a VP pick would be suitable to the greatness and potential of this country, Mitt Romney sits among the best in leadership this nation has to offer from what I’ve seen. I still doubt it, but if McCain can find the gray matter to make a choice like Romney I’ll get out to vote. Otherwise I hit the snooze button again for four years.
Oh ha ha just couldn’t pass up the Hear Me Roar comment, the name suits the mentality. THis is obviously one of those people that think women should do everything while the men sit on their hinies, as is the case in much of the world. How about God giving men the ability to bear children? I guess men will never be equal to women, sigh. Oh wait - National Enquirer has a picture of a dude having a baby - guess women will be getting the priesthood soon. Dopey, isn’t it.
That’s a real conservative who decides to attend the Olympics in the PRC. Makes me wonder about him.
Also, what does Ambinder mean when he says that McCain needs help in the contiguous 48? That was a total non-sequitir.
That said, he probably is the favorite for VP at this point in time. Of course, Big Brown was the favorite in the Belmont and the Lakers were tha favorites in the NBA Finals and David Archuleta was the favorite on American Idol.
I do know the DNC and the Obama campaign have every one of his ads ripping McCain fired up and ready to go. They have every second of the debates ready, inculding all the times when he attacked McCain and put himself 180 degrees from him on any number of key issues. They have all his public appearances and TV and Radio interviews where he did the same. He would be an oppo researcher’s dream come true. Within even a few days of research they would have enough material to last them for years. Enough to totally embarass the GOP ticket and pretty much expose them.
I can guarantee you he and McCain would be asked about it every day. All his flip flops and you tube videos that only really a small fraction of the GOP primary voters saw will now be seen by the entire electorate.
The Mormon issue will be raised and both he and McCain will be asked about it constantly. Mitt I’m not worried about. McCain I am. To take one example, “Senator, you were against the MLK holiday in Arizona and you just named as VP a man who belongs to and holds a leadership position in a Chirch that discriminated against black until 1978. What message are you trying to send?” The dems will make Romney and Warren Jeffs indistinguishable and valuable time will be wasted trying to counteract that. There’s other issues as well associated with it.
The fact that he was 180 from McCain in the Primaries and the mormon thign are just two of many potential drawbacks, there are many more. But he has a bunch of advantages as well. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
If that 36% among women that Quinnipiac released today is true, that may change his calculus, particularly if Obama goes with the eminence grise type in Biden, Dodd, Reed, etc…
Increasing scientific data is showing in fact that women are superior to men, which would probably explain why colleges cannot find enough qualified male candidates. Many are predicting that generation “Y” will be dominated by women. Not only are young women attending college at higher rates (growing every year) then males, but in fact women excel at acedemics and business more than their male counterparts for this generation.
You may be laughing now, but our children are going to live in a very different country in 35 years, probably for the better.
Your typo, not mine bud! Apparently guys can bear children, though it must not come easy. Similarly, women are clearly capable of management, but you can imagine if women are given the primary responsibility for everything under the sun, that leaves a lotta guys with nothing but free time out there - reference Bill Clinton, I could name others - leads to the decline of society.
For that guy that’s worried about the economy - I am too. Obama nor McCain reassure me not one bit about that. If Obama got an awesome economic guru on board, I swear I would take another look at him, especially since I believe Obama doesn’t think for himself but is told what to think, as witnessed by his 24 hour turn arounds on serious positions, and the strong counter culture influences in his life that he constantly listens to. McCain acts on his own, but from his gut rather than using reason or intellect. Whoever gets the economic genius on first wins as far as I am concerned.
Kristofer, you have interesting data. I wouldn’t say women are superior to men overall, only in some areas. Interestingly enough, men tend to be superior to women in certain areas too. Like crushing beer cans on their foreheads. (just kidding, man!) It is accurate to say men and women are equal in value but different in makeup, in some areas. If Obama and McCain keep pushing the global warming agenda and take us back to the caveman days, women will once again be at a disadvantage since we will not be able to own guns, no running water or electricity, and brute strength will be the ultimate decider of who gets what. That’s why I am a conservative, hoping still for the rule of law and order. Civilization suits me. You know, preserve the lives of the unborn and elderly, punish the criminals, not the other way around.
The pregnant man, who I think did give birth, used to be a woman.
On the economy is where McCain most needs to beat back the McCain=Bush line of attack. It doesn’t take an expert to know that whatever we are doing isn’t working so McCain better avoid being seen as “staying the course.”
That video of Gov. Sanford drawing a blank didn’t help.
You are correct, in my college days, I knew very few women that could do that, and the ones who could, were usually on the women’s hockey team.
The good news about McCain is that he refuses to agree to the European mandates, which translates to McCain supporting the fight against climate change, but he really has not committed himself to any benchmarks. That is his signal to Conservatives. and McCain’s proposals are to the right of the Warner bill.
That said, McCain benefits himself to selecting Palin, not Romney, as Palin’s message on the environment and drilling seems to resonate will Wall street and Main street.
73. I have spent time at the official LDS site but it doesn’t go into detail about eternal marriages. Here’s what wiki had to say about celestial marriages:
In the LDS Church, both men and women may enter a celestial marriage with only one partner at a time. A man may be sealed to more than one woman; if his wife dies, however, he may enter another celestial marriage, and be sealed to both his living wife and deceased wife or wives. Many Mormons assume that all these marriages will be valid in the eternities and the husband will live together in the afterlife as a polygamous family with all wives to whom he was sealed. On page 72 of the 1998 edition of the Church Handbook of Instructions, the LDS Church clarified that a woman may also be sealed to more than one man. A woman, however, may not be sealed to more than one man while she is alive. She may only be sealed to subsequent partners after she has died. [1]
It doesn’t appear that the Mormon policy on celestial marriages is evenly applied to men and women. There is a lot about the Mormon church that I like — but I am very suspicious about the church as to its view on women. And if I have these concerns, isn’t it likely that other women do too?
Why is a discussion about the Mormon faith off limits as to Romney’s political ambitions?
Next time, lead them on to waste their resources. Tell them you like Obama and may consider voting for him and tell them that you’d like more information.
That way, they’d waste their time & money on you verses preying upon the other weak minded.
Something bad musta happened to you, maybe. But clearly the suspicion of gender inequality is eating away at you, and you need to resolve it before you vote. May I ask, are you anxiously hoping to marry a Mormon male in a Mormon temple? Are you pining to be an authority in the Mormon church? If not, why torture yourself about every rule and regulation that may or may not pertain to what women get to run and what men get to do in that particular belief system?
I am more practical. I look at Ann Romney and say to myself, I think that is how married women would like to be respected and treated by their spouse. I mean, at times, Mitt Romney is almost licking her stilettos. Well not really, but you get the impression he holds her in great esteem and would do nothing to offend her ot jeopardize the relationship. I look at Al Gore who is so patronizing to his wife that rumor has it he sent her to the loony farm for a stint. Or Theresa Kerry and her spouse. Or Bill Clinton and his wife. And I think, who respects womanhood more? Believe me, I notice these things too. The answer is obvious to me. So if Mormons are kicking women in the head, I ain’t seein’ it.
As an attorney who has personally negotiated and closed more M&A’s (including private equity deals) than I care to remember, I have no idea where the idea emanates that being a successful business person renders you an expert on the economy. Successful business people take advantage of a good economy and invest accordingly. They don’t create good economies; they often are involved in the corporate greed (and I have seen so much of it) that ultimately bleeds and destroys the economy. Then the “smart money” gets out at the top leaving the uneducated investor in the lurch.
Business prowess may be a great recipe for corporate success, but business acumen does not equal economic advantage — especially true for a U.S. chief executive. Romney will NOT inspire middle class voters; they will view him as the epitomy of all they have grown to despise and blame (to same degree quite correctly).
I hope McCain selects him, for my own personal reasons, but I fear he may not be that influenced.
There should not be a religious litmus test for seeking office. If you want to provide one for your own vote section process, go a head - that is your right. I think that it is not right to discredit the man due to one to two beliefs of his religion. By so doing, you make all religions a political liability. Now I’m sure that there are many that would like to see all religions become political liabilities, even several Republicans. But I would not.
#97, the problem is, a large portion of the country do or may have an issue with Romney’s faith (which is obviously a Christian belief). I do remember people walking out of the polling booths making discriminatory statements about Romney’s faith.
But that is not the problem with Romney, it is his net -12% ratings.
#94. “If not, why torture yourself about every rule and regulation that may or may not pertain to what women get to run and what men get to do in that particular belief system?”
My fear is that if a different set of rules apply to Mormon women in the celestial heaven, that attitude will rub off on Mitt and other Mormon politician as to their views on women in this world.
I’m not the only woman who has doubts about electing a Mormon to the presidency. If Mitt is on the ticket as VP, or eventually as President, he needs to help me understand that the Mormon position on women is that it empowers women rather than making them second class citizens.
#97. And if a candidate’s religion required genital circumcision for women, that should be overlooked too?
I’d have voted for Romney. His religion wasn’t an issue to me.
One thing I appreciated was he didn’t try to equate Mormonism with Christianity. That would have been offensive. I think a Unitarian running for office would face the same thing.
#95
“Romney will NOT inspire middle class voters; they will view him as the epitomy of all they have grown to despise and blame”
What happened to this country that the middle class despise successful business people rather than strive to improve their lot? the american dream is officially dead.
#103
“If Mitt is on the ticket as VP, or eventually as President, he needs to help me understand that the Mormon position on women is that it empowers women rather than making them second class citizens. ”
If it is really bothering you, go talk to mormon women. I would think they could inform (”help you understand”) you better than Romney could.
To:HearmeRoar#103….you are making some of the most
ridiculous arguments against Romney that I have ever
seen. Obviously, you did not see/hear his “Faith
In America” speech on Dec 6, 2007. Mitt Romney is a
man of great character and integrity. His family/Christian
values are as good or better than most anyone in public
office. You are stretching just to find something wrong with
this very good man. You have no evidence that anything
in his Mormon faith would adversly affect his performance
as VP, or any history of such as Governor. Please stop
your sillyness.
Sean Hannity just agreed with a caller that Romney would be his (Sean’s) first choice of Veep for McCain. Romney’s Veep prospects are getting better and better.
Does it matter? I mainly want to know how we can keep Obama out of the White House. What does it take to do that?
#110. Hey! Don’t shoot the messenger. I believe there are a lot of people who have reservations about the Mormon faith in regards to its view on women. I’m not doubting Mitt’s character and integrity. But he will bring his life experiences to the office. He is faced with the same problem that Kennedy had about people concerned he would be at the beck and call of the Pope. Mitt needs to explain to me why there is a different set of rules for women in the after life. And if he disagrees with that aspect of his religion, he needs to say it.
This website discusses every aspect about possible VPs to the smallest detail. I don’t see why Mitt’s religion should be off limits — especially when it is the biggest reason why a lot of people won’t vote for him.
Name someone else’s religious belief that has been discussed on this site, HearMeRoar.
I haven’t been reading here forever, but I don’t recall any other candidates’ religious doctrines being discussed. We don’t even discuss Obama’s religious doctrines, for crying out loud.
It may not be fair, but the liberals/media/comedians will tear apart Mormonism if Romney is the VP.
That HBO series about the polygamist Mormons will become the primary source concerning Mormonism for most Americans.
Get ready for every “misunderstanding” and “misconception” regarding Mormonism to be trotted out in a full court press to defeat McCain/Romney.
Also, evangelicals and pro-life Catholics foot soldiers makeup a substantial portion of the Republican GOTV… while they will not vote for Obama, other alternatives exist. At the very least, any generic Republican would garner more enthusiasm than Romney.
What happened to this country that the middle class despise successful business people rather than strive to improve their lot? the american dream is officially dead.
This is a ridiculous statement. Americans generally respect those who are successful, but don’t necessarily want them leading us. There is no reason to expect the successful businessman to have our best interests in mind, and a knack for making money is not a substitute for skill in governing or desirable policies. The only area in which Romney’s business background has made itself clear in this campaign season is in his incredible drive to make a “sale” even if he has to lie about the product to potential buyers. He comes across as a used car dealer as much as he does as a successful venture capitalist.
Mitt Romney’s life from age 1 to 60 did not occur in a vacuum. He has had female colleagues and employees throughout his adult life. He has governed a state. Is there evidence based on his conduct that would suggest that he has ever advocated a discriminatory position toward women? If so, please cite your source because I would like to know about it. If not, what are you really pursuing here?
#116,
No - and he shouldn’t be.
Mormons are overwhelmingly republican. What damage is inflicted if the democrats vilify the entire diversification of Mormon faiths? They will not lose 1% of their constituents, because they don’t have the Mormon vote now. But they will turn off any swaying republicans to this ticket because of the negative things they dig up.
“Why not piss off the Mormons, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Will be the logic. It will be death by collateral damage.
If the Democrats go after Baptists, Lutherans, Buddhists, or Hindus, they will be shooting equally the republicans and democrats’ faith. They can’t afford to do that.
The reason that Romney posts generate so many comments is because of the animus certain people have against him on this site. A Romney post brings out the worst in them. Those of us who supported him with time, money, and our vote resent this hostility and feel compelled to set the record straight. I’ve never brought up Romney except in a Romney context. I’m very pleased that some of Mitt’s detractors are showing personal growth…..others, not so much. This is too bad, because he will probably be our VP nominee, and the party is in dire need of unity about now.
And to Hearmeroar - I bet Mitt has an exemplary record of relationships and respect for women - I do not doubt that his faith has helped him stay strong and moral in his personal life. I do not have any complaints about Mitt as a Mormon, in fact I salute this person who has been married for how many dozen years? 30 Years? Amazing in this day and age. His family looks to be a fine upstanding bunch, and he is obviously great with money.
My problem is I think he is smarmy with his political aspirations. I do not trust him to vigilant in a authoritative office. He will say or do whatever is necessary to win opinion. I have a problem with that. But, compared to others, (including the top of the ticket) he is a saint.
I’ve had the feeling that the MSM has already been writing lots of negative stuff about the Mormon faith. This is one reason so many people wouldn’t “vote for a Mormon.” Do you think the MSM would dare to go even more overboard than they already have? Wait, that was a stupid question. Of course they would.
Perhaps you’re right, but it certainly doesn’t make sense for McCain to run scared because of it. McCain will choose whomever he feels can best help him win. You, me and every other poster on this site has very little, if any, influence over that decision.
#117. The point I am trying to make is that a lot of people have reservations about the Mormon faith. Does anyone here disagree with that statement?
And if that statement is true, does anyone disagree that it could be a factor that could work against Romney at the polls?
If the various pros and cons of each VP candidate is discussed in depth at this website, why can’t people’s reservation with the Mormon faith be discussed in regard to Romney as the VP?
Romney’s Mormon faith won’t be questioned much during
the general election because it then puts Obama’s
faith into question with his racist/Anti-American
Church.
If Mormons are indeed so reliably Republican, that would suggest then that they have been pivitol in electing many evangelicals,
catholics, and others…If the Democrats are going to smear Romney’s religion, then shouldn’t Republicans grow a spine and
prepare to defend their most loyal voting block instead of cowering like little children from the big bad lying Democrats?
If its Romney there are alternatives to vote for. Ill go third party for the fist time in my life.
I was trying my hardest to hold my nose and vote for McCain, If he picks a Romney for VP, I will definatly be Voting Bob Barr as a Protest Vote. I dont care if Barr can win or not. I think Barr is the most Conservative candidate of all the candidates. Dont take my word for it. Go to one of the Barr sites. He has conservatice credentials. http://www.BarrRoot08.com
What really bothers me is serveral Polls have been done and all of the polling suggests McCain would do better with Huckabee then any other Vp Candidate. Yet it seems hes not even being vetted? Another Black eye for us Conservatives. Huckabee is the only way I and many of the (Conservative) X-Republicans that I know would vote for McCain. We didnt like him when he got the nomination. We dont like him now. The RNC deserves to lose this year. They pushed McCain down our throats and wouldnt let the primary play out. They get what they deserve. Mike Huckabee is the over whelming pick for VP among most Republicans and 89% of conservatives. According to a poll at. http://www.VeepPeek.com
Huckabee actually had a sound energy plan, unlike either of these candidates we have now. Even T. Boon Pickins has a better energy plan then these guys that are running for president. If you havnt seen it you should go check it out. at http://www.Tboonepickans.com
I know I am bitter but I have every right to be. We have alot of people out there who dont have a voice this election year. It seems like instead of trying to give us a voice, they are further distancing themselves from the base of the Republican party. Well I am no longer a republican. Nor is many of the Republicans that I knew.
I would even Rather Have Ron Paul then John McCain. Ron Paul might actually give this country some much needed Medicine. Our country is ill, and no one has answers. The people in leadership are part of the mechinism making our country sick. Wish Ron Paul was running on the LP ticket. He would probably win this thing. http://www.BarrPaul08.com
CBL #114….Thanks. But, I am one of the Pro-Life
Roman Catholics. I also believe that Romney is the
very best candidate for President of my adult lifetime.
and what does it say if there’s all this drama and dislike/distrust of Romney among conservatives and Republicans? Thta once you get to dems and indys, forget about it.
if we’re going to win we’re going to need to massively increase our #s among those two groups. The 93% of Reps that Bush got in 2004 won’t help us. The GOP base is 3035% smaller than it was four years ago(a real testament to Bush’s legacy, btw).
Bush got 11% of dems and 48% of indys. If McCain is going to win I think he’ll need at least 15% of dems and probably closer to 20 and at least 55% of indys and probably closer to 60. That’s a very tall order, and I question whether Romney helps him achieve that. For that matter I question whether any VP helps him achieve that.
I agree that the dems and the media will go full bore after him and his mormonism. After all the talk of Wright, the idea that it’ll be out of bounds will be laughable. We saw how Huckabee was able to use it to win in IA, and that was among a small GOP based sample in 1 state. Imagine Huck’s tactics writ large, backed by the Obama money machine and the dem/media establishment? Potentially not a pretty picture. McCain better become an LDS expert because he is going to be asked every possible question under the sun about it. I hope he’s studying.
” . . . Also, evangelicals and pro-life Catholics foot soldiers makeup a substantial portion of the Republican GOTV… while they will not vote for Obama, other alternatives exist. At the very least, any generic Republican would garner more enthusiasm than Romney.”
I can assure you that, while some evangelicals will have a problem with Romney, this “pro-life Catholic” and many others I know - as well as many evangelicals I know - will vote for Romney, because they find him to be a decent, family-values-oriented person with an excellent grasp of what is needed to turn the economy around.
The South will remain red, regardless of whether Romney is on the ticket. They will not vote for Obama - and the New Yorker cover will confirm many of their ideas about Obama and his shrew of a wife, like it or not.
And Romney does help to shore up the Western states, gives the Repubs a real shot at Michigan, and definitely helps in New Hampshire.
Joe Lieberman might get you to those figures of Democrats and Indy’s. The problem is that then the number of Republicans *might* fall through the floor. McCain’s definitely got an uphill battle here.
Is there anyway Joe Lieberman could renounce his socially liberal positions and maintain any integrity?
I am not sure that Romney is the best candidate for VP, and I acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to believe he is not. That being said, without evidence that his religious affiliation would negatively affect his leadership and policy-making in a tangible way, I am no more interested in entertaining why “some” people are not willing to vote for a Mormon anymore than I would be interested in learning why “some” people would not vote for a Jew or a Catholic. There will always be “some” people who are not willing to vote based on religion. At this stage, I believe “most” people are more concerned about competence and leadership.
If Mormons are indeed so reliably Republican, that would suggest then that they have been pivitol in electing many evangelicals,
catholics, and others…If the Democrats are going to smear Romney’s religion, then shouldn’t Republicans grow a spine and
prepare to defend their most loyal voting block instead of cowering like little children from the big bad lying Democrats?
You seem to neglect the fact that Mormons are a very small percentage of the population (2%), and are therefore unlikely to influence many national elections to a large degree, including this one.
I cannot think of a single occasion when a candidate’s religious affiliation, independent of some conduct on the part of the candidate, influenced my vote.
Your question brings up a particularly obscure point of religious theology, and something clearly from an anti-Mormon site that is meant to distort what Mormons really believe. I looked up the Doctrine and Covenants reference you gave and I couldn’t see anything in there that talked about differences between men and women, just a discussion on typical spiritual patriarchal order you can find in many places throughout the Bible. And this quote from you “each man who achieves the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is worth many times more than each woman” is clearly not Mormon theology at all.
But to me this is mostly irrelevant because as Romney has pointed out again, and again, and again the values he cherishes the most and holds in the highest regard are those of respect, love, tolerance, and letting people choose how to govern and live their own lives, their own religions, and their own beliefs. Mitt’s family has a heritage of fighting for these principles. His father was a great civil rights advocate. This is also a deeply ingrained philosophy in Mormon culture in general: they want to live their lives how they want and want to let others do the same. As others have pointed out, I think you can look at Ann Romney and each of the wives of all Mitt’s sons as a pattern for how they feel women should be treated. They should be empowered, independent, and yet an “equal partner” in marriage as the Mormon Church says. From my reading, the man is not above the woman, neither is the woman above the man.
This has gotten really spicy and very interesting I think. Does it bother HearMeRoar that Obama calls women Sweetie and pays them less than their male counterparts? Does it bother you that Huckabee was apparently picked by God to win the nomination and didn’t? Does it bother you that Clinton treats his wife like a dog and she keeps holding on instead of kicking him to the curb? Or is it the obscure Mormon doctrine as you interpret it limiting career opportunities for Mormon women in the next life the thing that’s really eating at you? I am not belittling your personal struggle with equity between genders, but it really is not a political matter so much as a personal one.
#138. I looked it up too and I also downloaded their 396 page manual at http://institute.lds.org/content/manuals/inst-234-235-student-marriage.pdf. And you’re right, the Doctrine and Covenants and that particular section doesn’t mention gods and goddesses. I really would like a straight answer about this issue and when I get it, I’ll be sure to post it.
But so far no one has denied that there is a different set of rules for Mormon men regarding celestial marriages than there is for Mormon women. And that bugs me. And may bug other voters.
I guess that was kind of an irrelevent and gratuitous dig at Huckabee that I stuck in there with the rest of the injustices done to women, but I couldn’t resist because that guy smacked of hypocrisy to me- and nonetheless because he belongs to the “in” religion he gets all kinds of passes. That’s my biased perception on that one.
The question will boil down to who has a better chance of winning his target State? Is it an absolute certainty that Romney locks up Michigan? Or can Ridge safely put PA in the Red column? I happen to believe the latter and I see Pennsylvania as the bigger prize. There are other intangibles at play here too. McCain respects men who served and Ridge fits that bill while part of McCain’s disdain for Romney (it is reported) was because he avoided service in the military. Ridge probably bests Romney in the “gravitas” category as well.
I wouldn’t vote for a McCain/Ridge ticket. Has Ridge distinguished himself somehow…didn’t he have to resign or something? And more military service becomes redundant with McCain. How is Ridge on the economy? Can he balance his own checkbook? On its face, that is an unappealing ticket to me.
I looked at the wikipedia link you attached above, and it appears you have your answer: the Mormon church allows a man, after his wife is deceased, to marry another woman in their temple. On the other hand, a woman, after her husband is deceased, may not marry another man in their temple. I am not in a position to confirm or deny whether this is true, so for the sake of argument, I will assume it is correct. It is disingenuous at best to claim that this is evidence that Mitt Romney is discriminatory toward women when there is no evidence that he is discriminatory toward women. If your point is that you cannot vote for a person that is a member of a religious organization that espouses doctrine or protocols of which you do not approve, than that is your perogative. As I have expressed in earlier posts, I am concerned about a candidate’s qualifications, competence, and conduct. We simply evaluate candidates differently.
#146 What is so funny? Are you saying you agree
with all the voters who are voting for liberal
democrats? I was trying to say that too many
voters vote without much thought to what they are
doing, and without any research of the candidates.
Thats all.
If you really really want to marry more than one Mormon man in a Mormon temple, I can see how this would be a problem. If you want absolute equity between genders in religious practice, did you know Mormon men are discouraged from wearing dresses and earrings? That’s a little discriminatory too, don’t you think? In terms of what it has to do with one’s suitability for the presidency….there’s quite a divide there.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“I just vomited in my mouth.” – Sorry, payback to the anti-Huckabee twits.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:20 am
So a reporter asks about Person A as a potential running mate, and the McCain campaign praises Person A but declines to say anything else specific about him or her. The reporter then goes on to confirm in the press the non-answer and speculates that this means that Person A is now more likely than ever to be McCain’s pick. Somehow, I think I’ve seen this pattern before. In case people haven’t noticed, the McCain campaign is not going to announce the running mate until they announce the running mate. All of these reports are pretty much meaningless.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
#2: Big S nailed it perfectly.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Look at who’s boosting Romney and who supported him.
He is the establishment pick.
McCain is probably under a lot of pressure to pick Romney.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Look at who’s boosting Romney and who supported him.
He is the establishment pick.
McCain is probably under a lot of pressure to pick Romney.
I think you’re right.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Chris Matthews also thinks it will be Romney. I think it will either be Romney or an off the wall, maverick pick. Romney’s the conventional wisdom pick. But I can still see McCain throwing out the playbook and picking, oh, I don’t know, Tom Ridge, Lieberman, Petraeus. etc. Those are the sorts of things McCain would do.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Actually all that’s happening is that reporters, talking heads and politcal analysts are realizing that they’d better acknowledge
the reality of a McCain/Romney ticket before their reputations for political predicitons are damaged. I just read an article by
Chris Cillizaa of the WaPost, who has been screaming for months that Romeny would NEVER be picked, who now believes Romeny is
sitting in the #1 spot. So, this is all about protecting their reps, nothing else. It’s been obvious for weeks now. It’s time for eveyone to come to terms with it too.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Agreed Taylor. It’s about hedging bets and covering their behinds now. Romney looks more and more like the pick every day. Check out his Intrade numbers too, they’re just constantly climbing.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:49 am
“McCain is probably under a lot of pressure to pick Romney.”
I commend the Romney camp for their marketing campaign, but Romney will will not be selected. Sorry guys.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:52 am
#4,
I bet he is - I hope he demonstrates that “independent” edge and picks a VP that will actually help him, rather than hurt the ticket like Romney would do.
I hope the McCain hasn’t been neutered by the establishment already. It would be a shame.
Im not saying Huckabee is the way to go (I think he might be because of the current economic situation) - but I do know that Romney is the wrong pick based on the states in “play”.
If anything kills the evangelicals support for McCain, it would be Romney. Sorry - I tell it like I hear it. The South goes blue, and the north goes purple. Is that a good trade off? I think not.
You will lose a huge valuable electoral sweep in the south, and trade it for a moderate possible single state gain up north or out west (but not both). If you are that lucky.
McCain, choose wisely.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Uh, I think the Economy is driving the Romney for Veep noise. McCain is great for the Iraq war issue but the Economy? Yikes.
Anyway, I think Rudy G. is strong on the Economy so why not pick him instead? Not that I would hate a Romney pick. I would be happy and excited for one, but I think Rudy gets you more moderates.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:57 am
There is no way the South goes blue. McCain is ahead like 20/30 points in the South. McCain can afford to lose 10 points in the South.
Anyway, I would pick Rudy instead and the South would still vote for McCain.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:57 am
McCain needs man strong on the economy.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am
The people who are pushing Romney for VP are those who didn’t support McCain during the primaries. Think NRO. They want McCain to serve only one term. So why should McCain listen to such people. The MSM also wants Romney as VP b/c he’ll engender almost no excitement with swing voters and will be a wasted pick. DaveG brought up in the post above that McCain is far behind with women. That’s where the election is. I keep on saying the Sarah Palin will excite women across the country with her story and narrative. If we pick a banal white guy, we may be getting what we deserve.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
so if it’s Romney mccain would need to announce the 1st week of aug before Romney goes to the Olympics but rudy would make me happy also
July 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
There is ZERO chance that McCain loses any southern state unless you consider Virginia a southern state and the only way Obama takes that is if he picks Kaine.
On Hardball yesterday Chris Matthews asked the panel if there was any state in which Romney would be a drag on the ticket and they all drew a blank. Then they proceeded to name about 10 states where he would help. This is not a difficult choice and I’m guessing that it has already been made.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I just watched that CBS interview with Romney, and every time I see Romney in that sort of setting, I find ludicrously disappointed that John McCain is our nominee. Romney’s a terrible politician in some respects, but no one gives a better interview, or does better in townhall settings; absolutely no one. I don’t know if Romney actually is moving up on the Veep list, but I wouldn’t be upset if he was. There is something nicely symmetrical about a war hero/economic genius ticket. In fact, I think if Romney hadn’t run for President, and instead had managed to get himself re-elected in Mass, only shifting on the life issue (from pro-choice to pro-life), we wouldn’t even be discussing the VP pick. He’d be the obvious choice.
It’s only because he fought bitterly with McCain in the primary, and sold himself as the “conservative’s conservative” that alot of folks are dismissing him. But, I’m starting to suspect, what with Obama’s egregious flailing, that the electorate has an awfully short memory. There’s probably no reason to believe that Romney can’t, after 6 months out of the spotlight, come back as “Mr. Fix-It, populist (Michigan edition” and do McCain some real good.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Opinions about Mormons; PEW
________________________________________________
31 pcerent say Mormons are not Christians
17 percent do not know
________________________________________________
favorable Opinion of ;
Jews - 76%
Catholics - 76%
Muslim Americans - 53%
Mormons - 53%
________________________________________________
25% of Americans are less likely to vote for a Morman
July 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
#10 Lets say Romney is picked. Would you be happy if your dire predictions such as the south turning blue turned out to be fasle?
Would that be a good development for our party and the country?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Prediction:
If Romney is selected, McCain will see his average poll numbers drop by about 5% within a week. There will be a negative bounce.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:10 am
#19. No. I would be troubled. But I also dont think McCain can win with Romney. In that case, we have the Big O, and in 2010, we have a conservative house and senate again, and in 2012, who knows, we will probably have a 1980 esk election.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:12 am
#21. Wow.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
PEW - GOP Evangelicals less likely to vote for a Mormon
Less Likely;
36% White Evangelical protestants
41% who attend church weekly
________________________________________
Are Mormon’s Christian (White evangelical)
Yes - 40%
No- 45%
_________________________________________
“One-word” impression of the Morman religion
#1 - Polygamy/Bigomy
#2 - Family values
3# - Cult
July 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
#20, I guarantee to you that if Romney were named VP today, McCain would take the lead in the national polls by the end of the week. Most people in the real world (Republicans, Independents, and Democrats) respect Romney although they may not agree with him on the issues. He is seen as able, competent, and a plausible President should he need to be. Anyone that would not vote for McCain because he picks Romney is already voting for Obama anyway. All he does is bring some of the fence-sitters over.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
McCain wants a VP that does no harm. It will probably not be Romney.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Anyone that would not vote for McCain because he picks Romney is already voting for Obama anyway.
B Werty,
Under no circumstance will I vote for Obama.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:23 am
In the CBS interview, it’s interesting that Romney said one of the things he might have done differently is acknowledge people that are atheist, with no faith at all and how important he thought their contribution was in America and also how important their contribution was in preserving the concept of freedom of religion.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I’ve been all for McCain since it became plainly obvious that Giuliani wasn’t going to become our nominee - but I’m becoming less and less convinced McCain can do this on his own. He looks tired and doesn’t seem to have much interest in any issue besides the war. I was the first to point out that Romney has some negatives - I still believe he does. But I do believe he has some positives too, most notably in NV and perhaps CO.
If the biggest rap against Romney is that the south might be lost then that’s just something I shrug my shoulders at. What are we to do? We have to ALWAYS appease the Evangelicals? Romney is pro-life and anti gay-marriage. That ought to be enough for those so-cons. And frankly, as far as I am concerned, if it’s not then that’s just too bad. We need to look at the trends. If we don’t lose VA this year we’re going to lose it in the next close election. We can’t depends on appeasing the hard-right so-con base in the south forever. Once VA falls, NC will be next. And then GA.
Now if Romney does manage to find himself on the ticket and he turns out to act like Romney v 1.0 - Iowa Caucus Edition, then he’ll deserve to lose. But if Romney, like McCain, can run as a social conservative that doesn’t make a fetish out of so-con crusades, and if Romney can act like Mr. Fix It on the economy, like Matt suggests above, then I’m all for his selection.
The Evangelicals need to grow up. They’re acting like spoiled children. And it’s only gotten worse since Dubya and Rove elevated their importance.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Wow Adam, a post of yours I actually mostly agree with. Good post.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am
#24:
I’m basing my prediction on national poll numbers showing Romney to be a drag on the McCain ticket vs. Obama (usually by more than 5%, btw), and strong indications that independents have a certain distaste for the pandering Romney. Furthermore, the contradictions between McCain’s and Romney’s positions on many issues will bring his multiple changes in position to the forefront. That’s a recipe for disaster.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
From the interview
——————
Interviewer: Reflecting on your faith in America speech, are you glad you made the speech? Do you have any regrets about the speech or that you missed something there?
Romney: I think one of the things I appreciated most about my campaign was not just the chance to meet some wonderful people and make some lifelong friendships but also to give a couple of speeches I thought were pretty important.
I’m glad I got to give the speech on faith in America. It was well beyond the scope of my campaign. It was meant to be broader than that, I think it was.
Romney: I gave a speech just recently talking about what things I’d change if I got a chance to do it again, and I said here is an addendum to that speech. I pointed out that I would have liked to have mentioned that people that don’t have faith also contribute to America and to our history; and that in fact, I think people without faith have as great a stake in making sure that faith in America is kept free as everybody else because they’ll be discriminated against if faith becomes a matter of differentiating among candidates.
Interviewer: You always did mention that subsequently, and I sense you wish you would have added that.
Romney: It was a speech on ‘faith in America’, not ‘non-faith in America’. So I didn’t think it naturally fit in, but I made that point subsequently.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I don’t see McCain picking Romney, especially after running that pro-immigrant commercial recently that zeroed in on Tancredo.
McCain will win this election from the center, and Romney’s the wrong guy for that. His primary season quotes will be used against McCain. And his flip-flops. And McCain’s statements against Romney.
McCain is all about character first, and he hates Romney.
The only way it happens is it McCain has convinced himself it’s the *statesmanlike* thing to do to pick his enemy. That’s a concept that would reasonate with McCain.
But I feel it’s much more likely we’ll see Pawlenty, Ridge, Lieberman, Petreaus, Palin, Fiorina or Meg Whitman. Not that I like all those. That’s just who McCain is comfortable with and who is workable (Rudy meeting the former but probably failing the latter test).
July 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I completely agree with DaveG, which has to be the first time. McCain will either pick Romney or a completely off-the-wall maverick pick just to prove that he is a maverick.
I am past caring much about the VP pick. I’m a Romney fan, but I’m not so sure that the Vice-presidency wouldn’t be a massive waste of his talents. I think it was John Adams, our nation’s first Vice President, who said he couldn’t imagine a more worthless office devised by man. If I am not mistaken, some other V.P. liken it to a bucket of warm spit. It would be better if he actually did something besides sit around waiting for McCain to have a heart attack.
(Of course, given McCain’s age and his fondness for temper trantrums, that may not be that long of a wait.) (-;
July 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“McCain is all about character first, and he hates Romney.”
Well, which is it?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
#33: Regarding those historical quotes about the VP, that was before the VP became the next frontrunner for Presidential nominee, and before the vastly expanded powers of the VP started by Carter, continued by Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, and even more vastly expanded by Bush II.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Taylor: In case you hadn’t noticed, most objective observers (non-Mormons) think Romney has no character.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I don’t know if anyone caught the brief article in Newsweek a while back entitled, ” Veepwatch Special: The Historical View”
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/03/veepwatch-special-the-historical-view.aspx
In it they lay out McCain’s and Obama’s Veep “archetypes.”
They claim that Mitt Romney is the Jack Kemp parallel (”Like Kemp, Bob Dole’s ‘96 pick, Romney is a former foe who would add economic-policy heft to the ticket.”)
They compare a Pawlenty pick to Sprio Agnew (68), a Palin pick to Geraldine Ferraro (84) and a Bobby Jindal pick to Dan Quayle (92) and a Joe Lieberman pick to Joe Lieberman (2000).
Interested to hear anyone’s comments about these comparisons.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
In fact, we can name the exceptions to that in a short list, like Matt Miller and Matt C.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:44 am
#36 Ok. Thank you.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Earlier in the year I was following the election because it was interesting. Now I am following it because I am a little scared about the economy. This is the first economic crisis in my life as and adult. So if Romney or anyone else can make sense of what we are going through and set forth a way to get out it can only be a good thing (regardless of whether the person is mormon or jewish or female or ?).
July 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
McCain will win this election from the center, and Romney’s the wrong guy for that. His primary season quotes will be used against McCain. And his flip-flops. And McCain’s statements against Romney.
Immigration
“Timetables” in Iraq
Climate Change
Earmarks
All of these things are important parts of McCain’s agenda (like it or not), and Romney has opposed him on them in the past. Like you said, there’s too much tension on the issues between these two for the selection of Romney to not be a distraction.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am
McCain could do a lot worse than Romney, but this is all speculation. McCain will pick whomever he wants to pick. In the end, I’ve got to think he’ll pick the person he thinks will help him the most to win the election. Who knows McCain’s mind? I certainly don’t and won’t pretend to.
The economy is forefront on most people’s minds these days. Rather than do the horse race thing as much, I’d like to see some ideas discussed here on what to do about the economy. I keep thinking about getting some canned food storage, something I should have done a long time ago. I’ve also been thinking pretty hard lately about putting in some solar power panels. Both would contribute a lot to feeling self-sufficient.
Do you know how good it would feel to get a bill from the Power Company that shows they owe ME? That would be friggin’ awesome!
July 15th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Sure were a lot of non-Mormons who voted for Romney in the Primaries, Metro.
That’s awfully rich of you to say that most non-Mormons think he’s got no character. To make a blatantly false statement like that shows some of your own character.
You could certainly argue that “SOME” people think he’s got no character. You could even say “MANY” people think he’s got no character. But that is not what you said.
Shame on you.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
I would really appreciate if someone of the Mormon faith would confirm if the following statement is true:
“Doctrine and Covenants 84:33-9; Goddesses are always subject to a god. Women are denied the Priesthood (meaning they are denied authority—not the same as Catholic priesthood). “In the LDS universe, theologically described as the real eternal universe, each man who achieves the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is worth many times more than each woman, even the women who qualify at that highest Celestial level, because each man who achieves Godhood-level may have numerous God-wives, but each God-wife may have only one husband. This can only mean that each “heavenly father” is worth many times more than each “heavenly mother.” And, even if the ratio were strictly one to one, the male God, not the female God, holds the priesthood authority and is the only one of the God parents to whom his earth-mortality children are allowed to pray. So Mormon women can never, NEVER achieve equality with men, no matter how outstanding or righteous the women are. That’s just the way it’s set up.” ”
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/walter-martin/mormonism.htm
If this is part of the Mormon faith, I don’t want any part of it in the White House.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Huckabee and Romney’s stocks are both soaring in the last two days?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Metro, #36, while that may be true of people’s perceptions of him, I think you’d be very, very hard-pressed to find anyone who knows Romney personally that thinks or has said he lacks character, quite the opposite in fact. Even McCain before the primaries talked a lot about Romney having “integrity and character”. Even Romney’s competition in the business world respect him immensely.
I looked up to Romney long before I ever thought he’d be anything more than a businessman because he has shown a lot of personal integrity in his life, volunteering to do hard work in service to others, treating his employees like equals, sharing the returns in his company with those around him, giving people the benefit of the doubt, and being honorable in his business dealings unlike some business people that lie or cheat to get ahead.
#33: don’t forget also that the vice-presidency during the time of John Adams was simply given to the person who received the second most number of votes in the general election, therefore, it was always a political rival in those early years.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am
HearMeRoar…
I’m sure there are plenty of theological chat sites you could get lots of people to banter religion with. I’m LDS and am in no way “more equal” than my wife (to quote a certain George Orwell novel).
July 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
#46
Besides the obvious silliness of your claim to have followed Mitt’s business career just for the heck of it, the statement that Romney has not lied and cheated to get ahead is completely laughable. Most peoples’ problem with Romney is that he has been so dishonest about his political positions and priorities that no objective observer can say with certainty what he really thinks about these things.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
#41 - Mitt’s idea on immigration were only slightly different, namely that those who came here illegally would have no special path to citizenship by having done so.
The ‘timetable’ thing was just a lie. In fact, McCain had made a much stronger statement regarding any support for a timetable withdrawel than Mitt ever made
Climate change will not be nearly as big now because McCain has changed his position on fossil fuels.
Earmarks? How were they different here? McCain in against them, and Mitt sure as heck is. He stated (while smiling) that he likes vetoes, that he has done it hundreds of times.
My suggestion, try telling the truth!
July 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Anyone got any ideas on how to prepare for a bad economy, or better yet, how to turn this economy around?
I’ve never been so pessimistic about the economy and the country in my life, though I’ve got the best job I’ve ever had and am more financially secure than ever. It’s all rather strange, isn’t it? I just keep thinking (obviously this is all my personal conjecture) that we’ve been greedy and “living beyond our means” (both as individuals and as a country) and it’s coming time to pay the bill and we just won’t be able to.
President Bush had some nice things to say about the economy fundamentals this morning, but I’m worried nonetheless.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Do all these non-mormons who think that Romney has no character also happen to be liberal “Republicans” who don’t like the fact that he ran as a conservative and almost won?
July 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I think John McCain is doing just fine without a VP. He has closed the avg. polls to just about the margin of error and McCain/RNC is outraising the Obama/DNC team. Sp what is there not to be happy about? Plus in most cases, the candidate behind in July ends up being President.
I think McCain will wait until the end of August to select a VP. He is waiting for Obama to select a VP first.
McCain is a much smarter politician than Dole or Bush. McCain knows that you can exploit your opponents weakness with the VP pick. So let us see which voting group Obama leaves vulnerable with his VP pick.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Mitt’s idea on immigration were only slightly different, namely that those who came here illegally would have no special path to citizenship by having done so.
That’s not “slightly different”; it was the center of the whole immigration controversy.
The ‘timetable’ thing was just a lie. In fact, McCain had made a much stronger statement regarding any support for a timetable withdrawel than Mitt ever made
It may have been a stretch of the truth, but they can’t exactly go back on it now.
Climate change will not be nearly as big now because McCain has changed his position on fossil fuels.
Did you see McCain’s “Balance” ad? He mentions climate change in it, and prominently. On the other hand, Romney has stated that he doesn’t believe in global climate change (electoral poison alert!), and has actually attacked McCain for entertaining the possibility in the past.
Earmarks? How were they different here? McCain in against them, and Mitt sure as heck is. He stated (while smiling) that he likes vetoes, that he has done it hundreds of times.
Romney’s strategy for winning Michigan was to promise huge new federal spending on programs specific to the state. He did a similar thing in Iowa with ethanol, but it failed to provide him with a win. While not earmarks, exactly, these kinds of new “programs” are one of McCain’s main issues.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
#42 & #46. I prefer, the “OK, thank you” response to claims like that. I was simply curious how someone “all about personal
chracter” could also be a hater?
July 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
How many Primary states did Romeny win by Super Tuesday. 3 or 4? That is it?
July 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Big S wrote:
“Besides the obvious silliness of your claim to have followed Mitt’s business career just for the heck of it, the statement that Romney has not lied and cheated to get ahead is completely laughable.”
Over his career, Mitt has worked with hundreds of companies and thousands and thousands of employees. He has competed against tons of other people and been involved in a great number of business transactions. Find me one statement by one of Mitt’s business competitors or employees or investors that say he cheated them, lied to them, or lacks character. Even in the business failures (that all businessmen have) he did his best to mitigate the losses for all those involved.
And yes, I do claim to have followed his career, is it that hard to believe? Being a businessman myself is it hard to believe that I would follow the career of one of America’s most prominent and successful venture capitalists? Guess I won’t be seeing you at the next private equity summit.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
***Breaking News*** According to an anonymous source (that would be me), my dog is now on McCain’s VP shortlist. When questioned about this, my dog announced that he had no idea he was being vetted and for now will concentrate on being my dog, sleeping under the table, and barking at squirrels in the yard. However, he has the charisma, personality, and speaking ability that would make Senator Obama look dull and boring. Based on polling (my own biased poll) he could easily turn Massachusetts red.
Big S # 2 said it perfectly. Everyday there is a new VP who seems to be at the top of the list. One day it is Romney, the next it is Fiorina, then Lieberman, then Pawlenty… The VP race, just like The Bachelor or The Bachelorette makes for some great discussion and sells newspapers. However, the only breaking news announcement that matters is the one given by Senator McCain himself.
I personally suspect it will be Pawlenty, based on the fact that him and Senator McCain are close friends, he appeals to working voters, and is from an important area of the country where McCain would like to pull an upset. Furthermore, he does have executive experience.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I think McCain announces Romney, if he is indeed the pick, on Aug 4th. Get a whole week of press in, right before VP selection Mitt goes to the Olympics….the Olympics in which he helped to turn around in Salt Lake City. Promote him as a “Getting It Done” type of guy.
What does McCain lose by announcing BEFORE Obama? What advantage could Obama have? I mean, if it’s Romney….how would Obama react to give him an edge poltiically??
July 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“America’s most prominent and successful venture capitalists”
I disagree, Romney was a successful venture capitalists, but certainly not one of the most prominent and successful. There are too many billionaires who can claim that title.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Taylor
“OK, thank you” could mean so very many different things. Now it appears your “thank you” was tongue-in-cheek or even sarcastic. Since I wasn’t sure what you meant, I took your response at face value as though you were simply gathering information and had no judgement on the value of the information Metro had given.
I obviously wanted it known that I didn’t value Metro’s “information” in post #36 very highly.
I apologize that I didn’t understand the subtlety of your post. For all I know, I’ve still not understood it properly.
Oh, well.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Big S seems to be very concerned about Romeny’s immigration stance being a deal breaker for him. I wouls like to know which
Republicaname that hasn’t already been voted out of office lines up with McCain on the issue? I suspect he’d have to pick a
Democrat for that one. The immigration would almost certainly eliminate Huckabee who signed the hard lined “send all the illegal
aliens home” pledge and got the endorsement of the leader of the minutemen.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
#50 I agree with you. I did not hear much from Bush to give me confidence, though. His administration keeps reacting to crises instead getting in front of them. People on CNBC have been warning for months about Freddie and Fannie, but nothing was done until they both lost 80% of their value. And, frankly, getting out there calling for drilling, which ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, should be left to those seeking re-election. He should be focusing on matters at hand.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
#60 Sorry about that. It was tongue-in-cheek, although I think I was rolling my eyes too. It just wasn’t worth responding to.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
That the president has waited until now, six months before his presidency ends, to make a real push for drilling - after letting the Democrats beat him into submission for years is one of the major failures of his presidency. The idea that the sixty votes weren’t there in the senate is a cop out.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
With so many problems I would figure the best thing Romney could do would be to stay away from the white house till 2012. Then again, I think we are forgetting who is the turnaround specialist. Lets just hope that credit is given where credit is due.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
#62
I think Bush’s matter-at-hand at the moment is getting Republicans back in control of Congress and the Presidency. That’s probably why (IMO) he was lambasting the “Democratic-led Congress” this morning. He used that phrase over and over.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I think Freddie and Fannie should have lost. Stockholders should pay for their mistakes, not the government.
I’d have waited a couple more weeks to bail out Freddie and Fannie if I were at the Fed.
The short-term pessimism in our economy is overdone. I think our long-term optimism is unrealistic too.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
#67
I, too, would like to see the bailouts stopped. But then again, I’m not in charge of the US economy. If Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae went down, there’d be a whole lot of people hurting like crazy (financially). I figure the Real Estate Industry lobby would probably put out a murder-for-hire contract on whoever let that happen, too.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
#37:
I was also thinking today that picking Romney is a lot like Dole picking Kemp.
If Obama picks Evan Bayh, that’s basically like Gore picking Lieberman.
I think Obama may pick Bayh in anticipation of a Romney or Ridge pick by McCain. Ridge puts PA into play and probably ups McCain’s numbers in OH. Romney puts MI into play. Bayh would cancel out Ridge’s adjacent-state impact in OH, and would also help neutralize Romney in MI, especially in the southern part of the state that’s in the Northern IN media markets and that remembers Bayh from the ’90s and remembers how IN voters basically want to elect the guy emperor.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Big S seems to be very concerned about Romeny’s immigration stance being a deal breaker for him. I wouls like to know which
Republicaname that hasn’t already been voted out of office lines up with McCain on the issue? I suspect he’d have to pick a
Democrat for that one. The immigration would almost certainly eliminate Huckabee who signed the hard lined “send all the illegal
aliens home” pledge and got the endorsement of the leader of the minutemen.
There are plenty of Republicans who support McCain-style immigration policies. On the contrary, isn’t the patron saint of anti-immigrant (illegal and otherwise) politicians (Tancredo) basically giving up this year? Aside from the questionable popularity of Romney’s conveniently-adopted hard-line stance on immigration, he’d have to adopt McCain’s position upon taking the place as VP nominee. That would be one extra flip-flop, and would lead to his political principles becoming an even bigger joke than they already are. It will be a distraction that will hurt the campaign.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
47-43 for Obama in gallup.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
So the DNC just called me. They wanted to know who I was voting for (McCain) and what the chances were that Obama could
change my mind. I think my exact words were “no chance” Oh it’s so fun to live in a battleground state!
July 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Hearme - Your claims about our attitudes and beliefs toward women could not be further from the truth. Let me ask you this: Let’s say you were interested in becoming a Catholic; would you go to the anti-Catholic sites to learn what they believe? Or, would you find out from them? I would suggest that you stick with the LDS sites or call up the young Elders to find out; no one tries harder than we do to inform people, and we enjoy doing so, so just try staying away from the the lies and half truths put forth on the anti Mormon sites.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
#66 In a crisis voters don’t want the President acting partisan. When you are hungry it doesn’t matter what party the baker belongs to.
Regarding Freddie and Fannie, Sen, Bunning (sp?) just ripped into Paulson and Bernanke calling the plan “big socialism.”
July 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Kristofer,
I don’t think that’s accurate. According to private equity international, Bain Capital is the 8th largest private equity firm (or 8th most successful). Romney founded Bain Capital. At one point he owned 100% of it’s stock (or something to that effect). I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to claim that Romney was one of the most successful venture capitalists. If he’s not a billionaire today, I suspect that has alot to do with personal choices; going back to Bain and Company for a spell, running the Olympics, running for office, and declining to leave the company with all his assets (I don’t understand this precisely, but there was an article on this point some time ago in a business magazine).
July 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
#74 - Paulette
I agree with you. George W. Bush has never been and apparently never will be the unifying Great Leader we all hope for.
#67 - Doug Forrester
I’m feeling long-term malaise. Thanks for helping me put the finger on it. I’ll be fine in the short-run, but get the feeling that this just can’t go on for very much longer before something big, bad, and ugly happens.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
#75, from what I understand, Mitt could have walked away with around 8 billions, but decided to spread the wealth, figuring he had all he needed for a while.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I recognize that we had to bail out Fannie and Freddie _eventually_.
However we should have allowed shareholders to suffer for their companies.
Now companies that are “too large to fail” will know they can get away with bad behavior and the Fed will bail them out _painlessly_.
If we keep painlessly bail-out financials, we’ll have a major crisis with these large financial companies in 4-8 years.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
#75, I am not questioning Mitt’s credentials, and in fact I think his greatest accomplishment was the SLC Olympics. I am sure everyone remembers Athens Olympics, where the state had to trim back non-Olympic capital expenditures to maintain EU guidlines on debt to GDP ratio, and the fact that final construction was still ongoing during the opening ceremonies.
Mitt was/is a great venture capitalist, but he is not one of the greatest in the nations history, not even is he in the top 100.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
IllinoisGuy,
That makes sense to me. Both Co-founders of TPG Capital, the 5th largest private equity firm, are worth around 3 billion a piece. At least on paper it doesn’t seem like a substantially more successful firm, and it was founded 8 years later. Romney’s less then 400 million seems curious in that context.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Kristofer,
I’m going to assume you have some special knowledge of the world of private equity (I don’t), because sans that your contention just seems odd. He’s the founder of the 8th most successful private equity firm. During his tenure, they realized an average 113% return on investments (or what have you). Objectively this seems to be a tremendous achievement. Yet there are supposedly 100 people in those 7 private equity firms that are more successful then Bain that surpass Romney? Certainly, by all accounts, there’s no one AT Bain who’s more competent and successful then Romney. Very odd. And it’s not as though private equity has a long-history; as best as I can tell, it’s been around for roughly 40 years.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Well this calibre of a VP pick would be suitable to the greatness and potential of this country, Mitt Romney sits among the best in leadership this nation has to offer from what I’ve seen. I still doubt it, but if McCain can find the gray matter to make a choice like Romney I’ll get out to vote. Otherwise I hit the snooze button again for four years.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Oh ha ha just couldn’t pass up the Hear Me Roar comment, the name suits the mentality. THis is obviously one of those people that think women should do everything while the men sit on their hinies, as is the case in much of the world. How about God giving men the ability to bear children? I guess men will never be equal to women, sigh. Oh wait - National Enquirer has a picture of a dude having a baby - guess women will be getting the priesthood soon. Dopey, isn’t it.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Gggrrr!
July 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
That’s a real conservative who decides to attend the Olympics in the PRC. Makes me wonder about him.
Also, what does Ambinder mean when he says that McCain needs help in the contiguous 48? That was a total non-sequitir.
That said, he probably is the favorite for VP at this point in time. Of course, Big Brown was the favorite in the Belmont and the Lakers were tha favorites in the NBA Finals and David Archuleta was the favorite on American Idol.
I do know the DNC and the Obama campaign have every one of his ads ripping McCain fired up and ready to go. They have every second of the debates ready, inculding all the times when he attacked McCain and put himself 180 degrees from him on any number of key issues. They have all his public appearances and TV and Radio interviews where he did the same. He would be an oppo researcher’s dream come true. Within even a few days of research they would have enough material to last them for years. Enough to totally embarass the GOP ticket and pretty much expose them.
I can guarantee you he and McCain would be asked about it every day. All his flip flops and you tube videos that only really a small fraction of the GOP primary voters saw will now be seen by the entire electorate.
The Mormon issue will be raised and both he and McCain will be asked about it constantly. Mitt I’m not worried about. McCain I am. To take one example, “Senator, you were against the MLK holiday in Arizona and you just named as VP a man who belongs to and holds a leadership position in a Chirch that discriminated against black until 1978. What message are you trying to send?” The dems will make Romney and Warren Jeffs indistinguishable and valuable time will be wasted trying to counteract that. There’s other issues as well associated with it.
The fact that he was 180 from McCain in the Primaries and the mormon thign are just two of many potential drawbacks, there are many more. But he has a bunch of advantages as well. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
If that 36% among women that Quinnipiac released today is true, that may change his calculus, particularly if Obama goes with the eminence grise type in Biden, Dodd, Reed, etc…
July 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
A man can’t bare a child (perhaps they can bear a child?).
I guess National Enquirer is going out like Weekly World News.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
#83, hey maya,
Increasing scientific data is showing in fact that women are superior to men, which would probably explain why colleges cannot find enough qualified male candidates. Many are predicting that generation “Y” will be dominated by women. Not only are young women attending college at higher rates (growing every year) then males, but in fact women excel at acedemics and business more than their male counterparts for this generation.
You may be laughing now, but our children are going to live in a very different country in 35 years, probably for the better.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Your typo, not mine bud! Apparently guys can bear children, though it must not come easy. Similarly, women are clearly capable of management, but you can imagine if women are given the primary responsibility for everything under the sun, that leaves a lotta guys with nothing but free time out there - reference Bill Clinton, I could name others - leads to the decline of society.
For that guy that’s worried about the economy - I am too. Obama nor McCain reassure me not one bit about that. If Obama got an awesome economic guru on board, I swear I would take another look at him, especially since I believe Obama doesn’t think for himself but is told what to think, as witnessed by his 24 hour turn arounds on serious positions, and the strong counter culture influences in his life that he constantly listens to. McCain acts on his own, but from his gut rather than using reason or intellect. Whoever gets the economic genius on first wins as far as I am concerned.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Kristofer, you have interesting data. I wouldn’t say women are superior to men overall, only in some areas. Interestingly enough, men tend to be superior to women in certain areas too. Like crushing beer cans on their foreheads. (just kidding, man!) It is accurate to say men and women are equal in value but different in makeup, in some areas. If Obama and McCain keep pushing the global warming agenda and take us back to the caveman days, women will once again be at a disadvantage since we will not be able to own guns, no running water or electricity, and brute strength will be the ultimate decider of who gets what. That’s why I am a conservative, hoping still for the rule of law and order. Civilization suits me. You know, preserve the lives of the unborn and elderly, punish the criminals, not the other way around.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The pregnant man, who I think did give birth, used to be a woman.
On the economy is where McCain most needs to beat back the McCain=Bush line of attack. It doesn’t take an expert to know that whatever we are doing isn’t working so McCain better avoid being seen as “staying the course.”
That video of Gov. Sanford drawing a blank didn’t help.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“Like crushing beer cans on their foreheads”
You are correct, in my college days, I knew very few women that could do that, and the ones who could, were usually on the women’s hockey team.
The good news about McCain is that he refuses to agree to the European mandates, which translates to McCain supporting the fight against climate change, but he really has not committed himself to any benchmarks. That is his signal to Conservatives. and McCain’s proposals are to the right of the Warner bill.
That said, McCain benefits himself to selecting Palin, not Romney, as Palin’s message on the environment and drilling seems to resonate will Wall street and Main street.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
73. I have spent time at the official LDS site but it doesn’t go into detail about eternal marriages. Here’s what wiki had to say about celestial marriages:
In the LDS Church, both men and women may enter a celestial marriage with only one partner at a time. A man may be sealed to more than one woman; if his wife dies, however, he may enter another celestial marriage, and be sealed to both his living wife and deceased wife or wives. Many Mormons assume that all these marriages will be valid in the eternities and the husband will live together in the afterlife as a polygamous family with all wives to whom he was sealed. On page 72 of the 1998 edition of the Church Handbook of Instructions, the LDS Church clarified that a woman may also be sealed to more than one man. A woman, however, may not be sealed to more than one man while she is alive. She may only be sealed to subsequent partners after she has died. [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_marriage
It doesn’t appear that the Mormon policy on celestial marriages is evenly applied to men and women. There is a lot about the Mormon church that I like — but I am very suspicious about the church as to its view on women. And if I have these concerns, isn’t it likely that other women do too?
Why is a discussion about the Mormon faith off limits as to Romney’s political ambitions?
July 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Taylor #72
Next time, lead them on to waste their resources. Tell them you like Obama and may consider voting for him and tell them that you’d like more information.
That way, they’d waste their time & money on you verses preying upon the other weak minded.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Something bad musta happened to you, maybe. But clearly the suspicion of gender inequality is eating away at you, and you need to resolve it before you vote. May I ask, are you anxiously hoping to marry a Mormon male in a Mormon temple? Are you pining to be an authority in the Mormon church? If not, why torture yourself about every rule and regulation that may or may not pertain to what women get to run and what men get to do in that particular belief system?
I am more practical. I look at Ann Romney and say to myself, I think that is how married women would like to be respected and treated by their spouse. I mean, at times, Mitt Romney is almost licking her stilettos. Well not really, but you get the impression he holds her in great esteem and would do nothing to offend her ot jeopardize the relationship. I look at Al Gore who is so patronizing to his wife that rumor has it he sent her to the loony farm for a stint. Or Theresa Kerry and her spouse. Or Bill Clinton and his wife. And I think, who respects womanhood more? Believe me, I notice these things too. The answer is obvious to me. So if Mormons are kicking women in the head, I ain’t seein’ it.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
#94,
“Mitt Romney is almost licking her stilettos”. If people are having those visions, Mitt will not boost the ticket to victory in the fall.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
As an attorney who has personally negotiated and closed more M&A’s (including private equity deals) than I care to remember, I have no idea where the idea emanates that being a successful business person renders you an expert on the economy. Successful business people take advantage of a good economy and invest accordingly. They don’t create good economies; they often are involved in the corporate greed (and I have seen so much of it) that ultimately bleeds and destroys the economy. Then the “smart money” gets out at the top leaving the uneducated investor in the lurch.
Business prowess may be a great recipe for corporate success, but business acumen does not equal economic advantage — especially true for a U.S. chief executive. Romney will NOT inspire middle class voters; they will view him as the epitomy of all they have grown to despise and blame (to same degree quite correctly).
I hope McCain selects him, for my own personal reasons, but I fear he may not be that influenced.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
HearMeRoar:
There should not be a religious litmus test for seeking office. If you want to provide one for your own vote section process, go a head - that is your right. I think that it is not right to discredit the man due to one to two beliefs of his religion. By so doing, you make all religions a political liability. Now I’m sure that there are many that would like to see all religions become political liabilities, even several Republicans. But I would not.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
#97, the problem is, a large portion of the country do or may have an issue with Romney’s faith (which is obviously a Christian belief). I do remember people walking out of the polling booths making discriminatory statements about Romney’s faith.
But that is not the problem with Romney, it is his net -12% ratings.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Anything about Romney is certain to:
1) Get a lot of comments;
2) Get around to talking about his beliefs;
3) Talk about is personal wealth; and
4) Not resolve anything.
No new ground is ever covered. Why not devote the space to a candidate we don’t know as much about.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I wanted to be the 100th post.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
#99 great idea.
I want to hear about Senator Hutchison.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
#93 I considered that, but I have enough junk mail. Good thought though.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
#94. “If not, why torture yourself about every rule and regulation that may or may not pertain to what women get to run and what men get to do in that particular belief system?”
My fear is that if a different set of rules apply to Mormon women in the celestial heaven, that attitude will rub off on Mitt and other Mormon politician as to their views on women in this world.
I’m not the only woman who has doubts about electing a Mormon to the presidency. If Mitt is on the ticket as VP, or eventually as President, he needs to help me understand that the Mormon position on women is that it empowers women rather than making them second class citizens.
#97. And if a candidate’s religion required genital circumcision for women, that should be overlooked too?
July 15th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I’d have voted for Romney. His religion wasn’t an issue to me.
One thing I appreciated was he didn’t try to equate Mormonism with Christianity. That would have been offensive. I think a Unitarian running for office would face the same thing.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Democrats don’t even care that Obama’s spiritual advisor hates America & white people, yet Romney’s picture perfect marriage is
a political liability?
July 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
#95
“Romney will NOT inspire middle class voters; they will view him as the epitomy of all they have grown to despise and blame”
What happened to this country that the middle class despise successful business people rather than strive to improve their lot? the american dream is officially dead.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
*I mean #96
July 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
#103
“If Mitt is on the ticket as VP, or eventually as President, he needs to help me understand that the Mormon position on women is that it empowers women rather than making them second class citizens. ”
If it is really bothering you, go talk to mormon women. I would think they could inform (”help you understand”) you better than Romney could.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
#99
Right On!
July 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
To:HearmeRoar#103….you are making some of the most
ridiculous arguments against Romney that I have ever
seen. Obviously, you did not see/hear his “Faith
In America” speech on Dec 6, 2007. Mitt Romney is a
man of great character and integrity. His family/Christian
values are as good or better than most anyone in public
office. You are stretching just to find something wrong with
this very good man. You have no evidence that anything
in his Mormon faith would adversly affect his performance
as VP, or any history of such as Governor. Please stop
your sillyness.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Sean Hannity just agreed with a caller that Romney would be his (Sean’s) first choice of Veep for McCain. Romney’s Veep prospects are getting better and better.
Does it matter? I mainly want to know how we can keep Obama out of the White House. What does it take to do that?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
#110. Hey! Don’t shoot the messenger. I believe there are a lot of people who have reservations about the Mormon faith in regards to its view on women. I’m not doubting Mitt’s character and integrity. But he will bring his life experiences to the office. He is faced with the same problem that Kennedy had about people concerned he would be at the beck and call of the Pope. Mitt needs to explain to me why there is a different set of rules for women in the after life. And if he disagrees with that aspect of his religion, he needs to say it.
This website discusses every aspect about possible VPs to the smallest detail. I don’t see why Mitt’s religion should be off limits — especially when it is the biggest reason why a lot of people won’t vote for him.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Name someone else’s religious belief that has been discussed on this site, HearMeRoar.
I haven’t been reading here forever, but I don’t recall any other candidates’ religious doctrines being discussed. We don’t even discuss Obama’s religious doctrines, for crying out loud.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
David:
It may not be fair, but the liberals/media/comedians will tear apart Mormonism if Romney is the VP.
That HBO series about the polygamist Mormons will become the primary source concerning Mormonism for most Americans.
Get ready for every “misunderstanding” and “misconception” regarding Mormonism to be trotted out in a full court press to defeat McCain/Romney.
Also, evangelicals and pro-life Catholics foot soldiers makeup a substantial portion of the Republican GOTV… while they will not vote for Obama, other alternatives exist. At the very least, any generic Republican would garner more enthusiasm than Romney.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
What happened to this country that the middle class despise successful business people rather than strive to improve their lot? the american dream is officially dead.
This is a ridiculous statement. Americans generally respect those who are successful, but don’t necessarily want them leading us. There is no reason to expect the successful businessman to have our best interests in mind, and a knack for making money is not a substitute for skill in governing or desirable policies. The only area in which Romney’s business background has made itself clear in this campaign season is in his incredible drive to make a “sale” even if he has to lie about the product to potential buyers. He comes across as a used car dealer as much as he does as a successful venture capitalist.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
HearMeRoar. Are you at all concerned about the particulars McCain’s religion?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
HearMeRoar:
Mitt Romney’s life from age 1 to 60 did not occur in a vacuum. He has had female colleagues and employees throughout his adult life. He has governed a state. Is there evidence based on his conduct that would suggest that he has ever advocated a discriminatory position toward women? If so, please cite your source because I would like to know about it. If not, what are you really pursuing here?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
#116,
No - and he shouldn’t be.
Mormons are overwhelmingly republican. What damage is inflicted if the democrats vilify the entire diversification of Mormon faiths? They will not lose 1% of their constituents, because they don’t have the Mormon vote now. But they will turn off any swaying republicans to this ticket because of the negative things they dig up.
“Why not piss off the Mormons, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Will be the logic. It will be death by collateral damage.
If the Democrats go after Baptists, Lutherans, Buddhists, or Hindus, they will be shooting equally the republicans and democrats’ faith. They can’t afford to do that.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
The reason that Romney posts generate so many comments is because of the animus certain people have against him on this site. A Romney post brings out the worst in them. Those of us who supported him with time, money, and our vote resent this hostility and feel compelled to set the record straight. I’ve never brought up Romney except in a Romney context. I’m very pleased that some of Mitt’s detractors are showing personal growth…..others, not so much. This is too bad, because he will probably be our VP nominee, and the party is in dire need of unity about now.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
And to Hearmeroar - I bet Mitt has an exemplary record of relationships and respect for women - I do not doubt that his faith has helped him stay strong and moral in his personal life. I do not have any complaints about Mitt as a Mormon, in fact I salute this person who has been married for how many dozen years? 30 Years? Amazing in this day and age. His family looks to be a fine upstanding bunch, and he is obviously great with money.
My problem is I think he is smarmy with his political aspirations. I do not trust him to vigilant in a authoritative office. He will say or do whatever is necessary to win opinion. I have a problem with that. But, compared to others, (including the top of the ticket) he is a saint.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
#118
I’ve had the feeling that the MSM has already been writing lots of negative stuff about the Mormon faith. This is one reason so many people wouldn’t “vote for a Mormon.” Do you think the MSM would dare to go even more overboard than they already have? Wait, that was a stupid question. Of course they would.
Perhaps you’re right, but it certainly doesn’t make sense for McCain to run scared because of it. McCain will choose whomever he feels can best help him win. You, me and every other poster on this site has very little, if any, influence over that decision.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
#117. The point I am trying to make is that a lot of people have reservations about the Mormon faith. Does anyone here disagree with that statement?
And if that statement is true, does anyone disagree that it could be a factor that could work against Romney at the polls?
If the various pros and cons of each VP candidate is discussed in depth at this website, why can’t people’s reservation with the Mormon faith be discussed in regard to Romney as the VP?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Romney’s Mormon faith won’t be questioned much during
the general election because it then puts Obama’s
faith into question with his racist/Anti-American
Church.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
If Mormons are indeed so reliably Republican, that would suggest then that they have been pivitol in electing many evangelicals,
catholics, and others…If the Democrats are going to smear Romney’s religion, then shouldn’t Republicans grow a spine and
prepare to defend their most loyal voting block instead of cowering like little children from the big bad lying Democrats?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
If its Romney there are alternatives to vote for. Ill go third party for the fist time in my life.
I was trying my hardest to hold my nose and vote for McCain, If he picks a Romney for VP, I will definatly be Voting Bob Barr as a Protest Vote. I dont care if Barr can win or not. I think Barr is the most Conservative candidate of all the candidates. Dont take my word for it. Go to one of the Barr sites. He has conservatice credentials. http://www.BarrRoot08.com
What really bothers me is serveral Polls have been done and all of the polling suggests McCain would do better with Huckabee then any other Vp Candidate. Yet it seems hes not even being vetted? Another Black eye for us Conservatives. Huckabee is the only way I and many of the (Conservative) X-Republicans that I know would vote for McCain. We didnt like him when he got the nomination. We dont like him now. The RNC deserves to lose this year. They pushed McCain down our throats and wouldnt let the primary play out. They get what they deserve. Mike Huckabee is the over whelming pick for VP among most Republicans and 89% of conservatives. According to a poll at. http://www.VeepPeek.com
Huckabee actually had a sound energy plan, unlike either of these candidates we have now. Even T. Boon Pickins has a better energy plan then these guys that are running for president. If you havnt seen it you should go check it out. at http://www.Tboonepickans.com
I know I am bitter but I have every right to be. We have alot of people out there who dont have a voice this election year. It seems like instead of trying to give us a voice, they are further distancing themselves from the base of the Republican party. Well I am no longer a republican. Nor is many of the Republicans that I knew.
I would even Rather Have Ron Paul then John McCain. Ron Paul might actually give this country some much needed Medicine. Our country is ill, and no one has answers. The people in leadership are part of the mechinism making our country sick. Wish Ron Paul was running on the LP ticket. He would probably win this thing. http://www.BarrPaul08.com
July 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
CBL #114….Thanks. But, I am one of the Pro-Life
Roman Catholics. I also believe that Romney is the
very best candidate for President of my adult lifetime.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
and what does it say if there’s all this drama and dislike/distrust of Romney among conservatives and Republicans? Thta once you get to dems and indys, forget about it.
if we’re going to win we’re going to need to massively increase our #s among those two groups. The 93% of Reps that Bush got in 2004 won’t help us. The GOP base is 3035% smaller than it was four years ago(a real testament to Bush’s legacy, btw).
Bush got 11% of dems and 48% of indys. If McCain is going to win I think he’ll need at least 15% of dems and probably closer to 20 and at least 55% of indys and probably closer to 60. That’s a very tall order, and I question whether Romney helps him achieve that. For that matter I question whether any VP helps him achieve that.
I agree that the dems and the media will go full bore after him and his mormonism. After all the talk of Wright, the idea that it’ll be out of bounds will be laughable. We saw how Huckabee was able to use it to win in IA, and that was among a small GOP based sample in 1 state. Imagine Huck’s tactics writ large, backed by the Obama money machine and the dem/media establishment? Potentially not a pretty picture. McCain better become an LDS expert because he is going to be asked every possible question under the sun about it. I hope he’s studying.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
#124 is in response to #118
July 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
#114
” . . . Also, evangelicals and pro-life Catholics foot soldiers makeup a substantial portion of the Republican GOTV… while they will not vote for Obama, other alternatives exist. At the very least, any generic Republican would garner more enthusiasm than Romney.”
I can assure you that, while some evangelicals will have a problem with Romney, this “pro-life Catholic” and many others I know - as well as many evangelicals I know - will vote for Romney, because they find him to be a decent, family-values-oriented person with an excellent grasp of what is needed to turn the economy around.
The South will remain red, regardless of whether Romney is on the ticket. They will not vote for Obama - and the New Yorker cover will confirm many of their ideas about Obama and his shrew of a wife, like it or not.
And Romney does help to shore up the Western states, gives the Repubs a real shot at Michigan, and definitely helps in New Hampshire.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
#126
Joe Lieberman might get you to those figures of Democrats and Indy’s. The problem is that then the number of Republicans *might* fall through the floor. McCain’s definitely got an uphill battle here.
Is there anyway Joe Lieberman could renounce his socially liberal positions and maintain any integrity?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
HearMeRoar:
I am not sure that Romney is the best candidate for VP, and I acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to believe he is not. That being said, without evidence that his religious affiliation would negatively affect his leadership and policy-making in a tangible way, I am no more interested in entertaining why “some” people are not willing to vote for a Mormon anymore than I would be interested in learning why “some” people would not vote for a Jew or a Catholic. There will always be “some” people who are not willing to vote based on religion. At this stage, I believe “most” people are more concerned about competence and leadership.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
If Mormons are indeed so reliably Republican, that would suggest then that they have been pivitol in electing many evangelicals,
catholics, and others…If the Democrats are going to smear Romney’s religion, then shouldn’t Republicans grow a spine and
prepare to defend their most loyal voting block instead of cowering like little children from the big bad lying Democrats?
You seem to neglect the fact that Mormons are a very small percentage of the population (2%), and are therefore unlikely to influence many national elections to a large degree, including this one.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
What do pro-life Catholics think about Romney’s adopt-an-extra-embryo proposals?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
#124
Nice post.
I don’t really know what the voting patterns are for all Mormons, but I sure know that Utah is very, very Republican.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
How extreme a view does a candidate’s religion need to have before it will impact how you feel about the candidate? Just curious.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
all that said, if it does turn out to be Romney, I hope he does a great job and helps the ticket win.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“I also believe that Romney is the
very best candidate for President of my adult lifetime.”
Wow, and yet he lost.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
HearMeRoar:
I cannot think of a single occasion when a candidate’s religious affiliation, independent of some conduct on the part of the candidate, influenced my vote.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
HearMeRoar,
Your question brings up a particularly obscure point of religious theology, and something clearly from an anti-Mormon site that is meant to distort what Mormons really believe. I looked up the Doctrine and Covenants reference you gave and I couldn’t see anything in there that talked about differences between men and women, just a discussion on typical spiritual patriarchal order you can find in many places throughout the Bible. And this quote from you “each man who achieves the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is worth many times more than each woman” is clearly not Mormon theology at all.
But to me this is mostly irrelevant because as Romney has pointed out again, and again, and again the values he cherishes the most and holds in the highest regard are those of respect, love, tolerance, and letting people choose how to govern and live their own lives, their own religions, and their own beliefs. Mitt’s family has a heritage of fighting for these principles. His father was a great civil rights advocate. This is also a deeply ingrained philosophy in Mormon culture in general: they want to live their lives how they want and want to let others do the same. As others have pointed out, I think you can look at Ann Romney and each of the wives of all Mitt’s sons as a pattern for how they feel women should be treated. They should be empowered, independent, and yet an “equal partner” in marriage as the Mormon Church says. From my reading, the man is not above the woman, neither is the woman above the man.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
#131 Your answer doesn’t reflect well on you.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
This has gotten really spicy and very interesting I think. Does it bother HearMeRoar that Obama calls women Sweetie and pays them less than their male counterparts? Does it bother you that Huckabee was apparently picked by God to win the nomination and didn’t? Does it bother you that Clinton treats his wife like a dog and she keeps holding on instead of kicking him to the curb? Or is it the obscure Mormon doctrine as you interpret it limiting career opportunities for Mormon women in the next life the thing that’s really eating at you? I am not belittling your personal struggle with equity between genders, but it really is not a political matter so much as a personal one.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
#138. I looked it up too and I also downloaded their 396 page manual at http://institute.lds.org/content/manuals/inst-234-235-student-marriage.pdf. And you’re right, the Doctrine and Covenants and that particular section doesn’t mention gods and goddesses. I really would like a straight answer about this issue and when I get it, I’ll be sure to post it.
But so far no one has denied that there is a different set of rules for Mormon men regarding celestial marriages than there is for Mormon women. And that bugs me. And may bug other voters.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I guess that was kind of an irrelevent and gratuitous dig at Huckabee that I stuck in there with the rest of the injustices done to women, but I couldn’t resist because that guy smacked of hypocrisy to me- and nonetheless because he belongs to the “in” religion he gets all kinds of passes. That’s my biased perception on that one.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
The question will boil down to who has a better chance of winning his target State? Is it an absolute certainty that Romney locks up Michigan? Or can Ridge safely put PA in the Red column? I happen to believe the latter and I see Pennsylvania as the bigger prize. There are other intangibles at play here too. McCain respects men who served and Ridge fits that bill while part of McCain’s disdain for Romney (it is reported) was because he avoided service in the military. Ridge probably bests Romney in the “gravitas” category as well.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#136…I said Romney was the very best candidate.
I did not say we had the very best voters.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I wouldn’t vote for a McCain/Ridge ticket. Has Ridge distinguished himself somehow…didn’t he have to resign or something? And more military service becomes redundant with McCain. How is Ridge on the economy? Can he balance his own checkbook? On its face, that is an unappealing ticket to me.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
LOL. So its not the one candidate but millions of Americans. Now that is elitism.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
HearMeRoar:
I looked at the wikipedia link you attached above, and it appears you have your answer: the Mormon church allows a man, after his wife is deceased, to marry another woman in their temple. On the other hand, a woman, after her husband is deceased, may not marry another man in their temple. I am not in a position to confirm or deny whether this is true, so for the sake of argument, I will assume it is correct. It is disingenuous at best to claim that this is evidence that Mitt Romney is discriminatory toward women when there is no evidence that he is discriminatory toward women. If your point is that you cannot vote for a person that is a member of a religious organization that espouses doctrine or protocols of which you do not approve, than that is your perogative. As I have expressed in earlier posts, I am concerned about a candidate’s qualifications, competence, and conduct. We simply evaluate candidates differently.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
#146 What is so funny? Are you saying you agree
with all the voters who are voting for liberal
democrats? I was trying to say that too many
voters vote without much thought to what they are
doing, and without any research of the candidates.
Thats all.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I’ll bet HearMeRoar really thinks Obama is a Muslim..
July 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
If you really really want to marry more than one Mormon man in a Mormon temple, I can see how this would be a problem. If you want absolute equity between genders in religious practice, did you know Mormon men are discouraged from wearing dresses and earrings? That’s a little discriminatory too, don’t you think? In terms of what it has to do with one’s suitability for the presidency….there’s quite a divide there.