Romney 08?
A quick question -- have the candidates for president for the 2012 election announced yet? If not, why not? I mean, these elections are getting worse than the "mew model year" car sales and commercials starting earlier and earlier. Folks, if you're running for president for 2012, you better get started now, because you'll be behind! Can we finish one presidency before we start the next one?
But of course, with 24-hour news and blogs, everyone has to talk about something, so the 2008 presidential election is it. So, Mark Joseph, of the Associated (with terrorists) Press has an analysis that claims that Mitt Romney doesn't stand a chance to get the GOP nod for 08 because of his religion. This will never be an issue with Democrat politicians, because to loyal Democrats, government IS their religion. However, Mr. Joseph makes the same error (perhaps intentionally) that many "analysts" make -- he associates conservatives with Republicans. The National Republican Party, George Bush included, has nothing to do with conservatives. If you think President Bush is a conservative, you're misinformed. There is almost nothing that Bush has done that could be considered conservative. The same goes for the previous Republican Congress. Now, do conservatives vote for Republicans? Sometimes simply because they feel that they don't have any other choice. One of the biggest tenents of conservatives that simply has no home in today's national politics is smaller government. If you want smaller government, there is NO home for you at all in national politics today. But then Mr. Joseph goes on to insult Evangelical Christians by declaring that none of them will vote for Romney because he's a Morman. I'm sorry, but I haven't seen that poll. I know a lot of Evangelicals that vote, and I don't know a single on that would base their decision primarily on membership in the Mormon religion. Instead, Mr. Joseph tries to muddy the waters by mentioning a poll in which 35% of Americans claim they wouldn't vote for a Mormon -- not mentioning how many, if ANY, of that 35% were these evangelical Christian voters. Perhaps that entire 35% were atheists. There are no links or data for the actual poll, so no one knows. Mitt Romney's going to have a harder time overcoming the idea that he's from super-liberal Massachusetts than he's going to have convincing people to vote for him because of his religion. But that wouldn't help the AP's agenda of attacking and insulting evangelicals, so that's not going to make the reports, is it?
Comments
1
Ogre,
Romney's issue is not his religion. It is his flip-flops. I seek a man I can trust. We need a leader not a follower and I think Romney has too much of John Kerry in him. He keeps trying to get out in front of whatever today's public opnion is, rather than leading that opinion.
As a staunch Christian Conservative, I could even get past his Gay support, if it was what he truly believed. But he keeps moving his position. And that leaves me wondering what he really believes. I want a pro-life President. But, I could end up voting for Gulliani, who is pro-abortion, because his stand against terror is so good. And when compared to Romney on the life issue, Gulliani is at least consistent. I would have no surprises. The same cannot be said for Romney so far. I would rather have an honest man who I disagree with on some issues, than a flip-flopper.
I have hopes for men like Brownback or Thompson to come on strong. I could even support a thinker like Gingrich. But Romney is pretty low on my list. If it came down to him or any Democrat, I guess I would hold my nose and vote for him. But in the primarry? Not hardly, pilgrim.
Romney's issue is not his religion. It is his flip-flops. I seek a man I can trust. We need a leader not a follower and I think Romney has too much of John Kerry in him. He keeps trying to get out in front of whatever today's public opnion is, rather than leading that opinion.
As a staunch Christian Conservative, I could even get past his Gay support, if it was what he truly believed. But he keeps moving his position. And that leaves me wondering what he really believes. I want a pro-life President. But, I could end up voting for Gulliani, who is pro-abortion, because his stand against terror is so good. And when compared to Romney on the life issue, Gulliani is at least consistent. I would have no surprises. The same cannot be said for Romney so far. I would rather have an honest man who I disagree with on some issues, than a flip-flopper.
I have hopes for men like Brownback or Thompson to come on strong. I could even support a thinker like Gingrich. But Romney is pretty low on my list. If it came down to him or any Democrat, I guess I would hold my nose and vote for him. But in the primarry? Not hardly, pilgrim.
Posted by: David S. at January 09, 2007 05:47 PM (FzAwx)
2
Good points, David! I don't know his position on anything because he's recently been changing them to fit his national run. It won't matter a lot to me voting-wise, because my vote will have no effect on the primary results. By the time NC votes, the presidential primaries are effectively over.
Tancredo's my first choice.
Tancredo's my first choice.
Posted by: Ogre at January 09, 2007 05:49 PM (oifEm)
3
His being Mormon would never bother me. I want to know how someone believe politically. You are right I suspect, he will have a harder time coming from Massachusetts than being Mormon. It least in my book...
Posted by: Bou at January 11, 2007 09:45 PM (PQFHD)
4
I think the article was a hit piece on Christians more than anything else.
Posted by: Ogre at January 12, 2007 12:06 AM (y8XDA)
5
He's a politician who has yet to master the art of not looking like a politician.
He has no chance.
He has no chance.
Posted by: Weapon of Mass Disturbance at January 15, 2007 03:25 PM (0eOeQ)
6
Oh, but he's getting good at changing his position on everything...
Posted by: Ogre at January 15, 2007 08:23 PM (oifEm)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.011 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0091 seconds, 14 records returned.
Page size 8 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.