Zogby: Romney Rockets! (NH poll shows Romney tied with McCain at 25%; Giuliani trails at 19%)

Zogby.com ^ | April 5, 2007 | John Zogby

[George W. Bush]

Finally, the campaign launched it’s newest television ad, “;I Like Vetoes,” which highlights Governor Romney’s pledge to bring fiscal discipline back to Washington. Governor Romney has proposed capping non-defense discretionary spending at inflation minus one percent and will veto any budget that exceeds that amount. Make sure to watch it on Mitt TV now ... early primary voters will be soon!

Good! I like this. While serving on a public board, we imposed this on the liberal majority due to legislative budgetary requirements. 7 of my eight years, we held below inflation.

Didn't hurt us a bit financially. And we still expanded our services while eliminating detritus of earlier failed policy initiatives. It wasn't even painful, except to the liberal majority who acted like it would kill them to tolerate any limitation on their ability to rob the voters to offer loopy services 'for the children'. But we even managed to convince some of them after some years had passed.

Federal, state and local governments needs to be put on a lean diet on a regular basis. Those parasites have a tendency toward slow metabolism and become quite obese without some dietary rigor.

I'm not supporting Mitt yet. But he is doing well to revive and champion fiscal conservatism and smaller government, at least with me.

[George W. Bush]

All the best, I know you will flame me big time after this post, but I've said my peace, and don't feel the need to debate my religion with you any further.

I would encourage the Mormons here to reconsider debating theology with the rest of us in detail on any political thread.

We simply will not agree on the matter. It's time to recognize that. And Mitt Romney is not running for pope so please don't allow the discussion to turn into something along those lines.

Focus instead on Romney's secularism and his governing as a civic Christian, a "Christian with a small 'c'". His record there is quite similar to that of any elected president from any of the orthodox Christian churches. I don't know of anything in his record to suggest he is some kind of super-Mormon. Far from it.

Romney is not making his campaign about Mormonism. I'd suggest you consider his example. I don't think letting Mormonism threads turn into theology threads contributes anything. Don't let yourselves be baited into such exchanges.

Giuliani, for example, is such a bad Catholic that he can no longer receive communion from his church and he and his Co-Presidentrix were so maritally immoral by the standards of the R.C. church that they had only a civil marriage without any blessing of their church.

But that isn't a very good basis on which to bash him and oppose him. We oppose him because he is a candidate of the Left, a domestic enemy of conservatives and those who love of liberty and the Constitution. And bashing Giuliani just for being a bad Catholic could offend many reliably conservative Catholics here on the forum.

The FR Mormons should discuss it among themselves. But I think it's good advice. I suggest you dialog with the moderators and JimRob and advocate restricting fights over Mormon theology to the Smoky Backroom where they have always belonged and with certain limits even there. This polluting of political threads with anti-Mormon material is also not healthy for the forum. Conservatives who are Mormons and Catholics and Jews and evangelicals and Baptists and Protestants or atheists or agnostic should all be able to gather on FR for discussions of politics and candidates. While religion and theology are not entirely irrelevant and should not be forbidden, I don't see any reason why Mormonism has any greater degree of difference from Judaism and Christianity and atheists in political dialog. FReepers who adhere to those other belief systems are not particularly singled out for discrimination against as a group politically. Why is Mormonism singled out in this way for a political discussion?

I think you should discuss with FR's management about whether posts bashing Mormonismm should be removed by hitting Abuse on them. Moving them to the Backroom would make it easy for anti-Romney FReepers to neutralize political threads with any favorable reporting on Romney. A discussion of Mormonism would only be appropriate on a political thread in the context of Romney being an extreme Mormon of some sort (polygamist, apostate, harboring a desire to favor Mormonism in public policy, etc.).

I am personally quite anti-Mormon theologically, to put it mildly. But this is the political side of FR, not the Smoky Backroom where the Robinsons have generously (and wisely) hosted a religion forum for us.

[Religion Moderator, does this kind of theological discussion belong in the Back Room? Should political threads be allowed to be the only place on FR where anti-mormonism is tolerated? Is this the face FR wants to present to the public? And are you the moderator to flag to deal with this issue, to arbitrate whether these antimormon posts have crossed the line? It's going to be a long and bitter year here if management won't impose a little discipline on this matter. Shouldn't we agree to be reasonable and save such discussion for the Backroom?]

[restornu, whatever happened to White Mountain anyway?]

[Old_Mil]

Question: What does the Mormon church have to say about Romney's promotion of the gay agenda in Massachusetts? Or are they going "Episcopalian"?

[Rick_Michael]

Ignore all polls. If we followed all the polls, we’d piss away the Constitution by now.

[FastCoyote]

“We simply will not agree on the matter. It’s time to recognize that. And Mitt Romney is not running for pope so please don’t allow the discussion to turn into something along those lines.

Focus instead on Romney’s secularism and his governing as a civic Christian, a “Christian with a small ‘c’”. “

And you’ve just demonstrated the problem with a Romney presidency. The entire time in office he would have to deny his Mormonism, OR he could slip and become super-mormon (I’ve seen that happen).

In other words, what you are saying is that he would have to bottle up the most important essence of his moral being in order to be viable - for the next ten years. And then you are going to be surprised when the problems happen.

What problems you ask? How about in the middle of a news conference when he is asked about the Book of Mormon’s view that blacks are the children of Caine (now whitewashed but part of the original Book of Mormon). Or asked to discuss Kolob. Or celestial marriage to many women (because spirit beings are 45 to 1 female).

Oh yeah, this is going to get nasty. And you all will have to suck up your Christian faith, or Jewish faith (American Indians are long lost Jews you know) and defend Romney’s beliefs. Or you will force Romney to become a hypocrite.

Sure sounds like a foundation of sand for a presidency.

[George W. Bush]

There is a long history, essentially a uniformity, of small-'c' Christianity by our past presidents. Although it was and still is a Protestant country, it was less than twenty years after its founding that the government hosted a Catholic Mass in the Capitol. (Worship in the Capitol was a weekly event, attended by the president and many in Congress.) America was rabidly Protestant in those days, having narrowly escaped the establishment of state churches (all Protestant denominations except for the Baptists who turned it down and fought the battle to stop the state church movement.)

America is a country of religious tolerance. We do not tolerate violent cults, like Islam, however.

As to your remarks about people bringing up the Book of Mormon, I doubt it would come up any more than questions about the Church of Christ came up with Reagan, or Episcopalean questions with Bush I, Southern Baptist questions with Xlinton, or sinless perfectionism within Methodism with Bush II. Why? Because they didn't run on religious platforms any more than Romney has.

What problems you ask? How about in the middle of a news conference when he is asked about the Book of Mormon’s view that blacks are the children of Caine (now whitewashed but part of the original Book of Mormon). Or asked to discuss Kolob. Or celestial marriage to many women (because spirit beings are 45 to 1 female).

It won't be asked. Not more than once. Any organization would find itself expelled from White House press corps. And they know it full well. I don't think you can cite a single example of Romney being anything except Mormon in private belief and worship. There is no basis for this accusation. And the pattern of his life indicates that his fundamental drives are toward his family and wife, business success and, having succeeded at all those, now political leadership.

Oh yeah, this is going to get nasty.

Only if the moderators allow posts like the ones you placed on this thread. Be warned that I intend to start hitting Abuse on them and I will encourage others to do the same. You're causing harm to our forum.

This is a conservative, constitutional forum. Persons of all religious traditions and races are welcome here, the only litmus is that they are conservative. We have Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, evangelicals, militant atheists, agnostics... even a few Muslims of the Western-oriented type. All those are fine here but only Mormons are to be singled out? I don't think that is management's intent.

Have you considered the harm you cause to the forum by posting this sort of attack on Mormonism on a political thread, especially during a fundraiser? Why would Mormons want to donate to FR if they see this?

For that matter, look at the voting record of Mormons. They are as solidly Republican a voting bloc as you'll find. Always have been. Is our message to them that they can vote for us but just forget about every sharing leadership, even if they have an extremely capable candidate in their midst? Is it "no Mormons need apply"?

Somehow, I never noticed all the attacks on the dangers posed to the country by the Mormonism of Harry Reid or other Mormons. And they do have about 5% of the elective offices in government, about three times their percentage of the population. So where is the pro-Mormon policies of this group? When was the last time you saw Harry Reid assailed to explain the Book of Mormon to the press, as you imagine Romney would be asked? And why couldn't Romney, if asked, just tell the press that he thinks Harry Reid, being older and more experienced in Mormon theology, should be consulted to speak for Mormon theology?

And you all will have to suck up your Christian faith, or Jewish faith (American Indians are long lost Jews you know) and defend Romney’s beliefs. Or you will force Romney to become a hypocrite.

No, we wouldn't. Why is every other denomination that lays a claim to the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ, thundering damnation and denouncing the heresies of every other Christian denomination and theological formation, so trustworthy in this regard and immune to the press and only Mormonism is to be accused of bad motives or that the election of a Mormon will become a giant Mormon extravaganza? No, it just doesn't wash.

If you want to debate Mormonism, start some threads in the Backroom. Stop giving our forum a black eye. FR is a home to all conservatives. Not just non-Mormon conservatives.

[FastCoyote]

“Oh yeah, this is going to get nasty.

Only if the moderators allow posts like the ones you placed on this thread.”

In other words, you are a big crybaby who can only get his way by restricting speech. I’m impressed, you aren’t saying I said anything inaccurate, only that discussing the inconvenient problems of Mormon theology are hurting your candidate.

I’m one of the ones who went out on the limb to divulge Harry reids connections to the Mafia and his land deals here in Las Vegas. Much of what Harry gets away with is also due to the silencing of opposition to discussions of how his faith conflicts with his sordid associations.

So, I want to thank you for pointing out how you wish to surpress candid speach in order to promote your candidate.

Yes, please advise the moderator, and may your stay on Kolob bring you a nice tan.

[FastCoyote]

By the way, the only way my posts could raise hackles so much is if what I say about Mormonism was 1) demonstrably utterly false OR 2) demonstrably and utterly true.

I go frequently to source materials on the history of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, so dismissing my views is pretty hard to do - I can provide source materials and statements from Mormons and former Mormons.

So, moderator, if the truth is to be banned, it will certainly be a sad day.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I’ll be sure to tell the Americans that are voting for him.

Make sure you tell all of your gun grabber buddies too...

[FastCoyote]

“All those are fine here but only Mormons are to be singled out? I don’t think that is management’s intent.”

Not every Mormon, just the one running for president of the United States who will have his finger on the nuclear button and lead our troops to battle. Seems like a presidential candidate might be open to scrutiny. And I’ve also written more than you will know about Harry Reid’s problems at great personal risk.

But let’s just live in a bubble and believe the fair and balanced Democrats will never bring up any of the questions I’ve raised.

[George W. Bush]

In other words, you are a big crybaby who can only get his way by restricting speech. I’m impressed, you aren’t saying I said anything inaccurate, only that discussing the inconvenient problems of Mormon theology are hurting your candidate.

It is not restricting speech to consider political threads to be different than religious threads.

This is clearly nothing but a political thread, it is about Romney's surge in the polls. Nothing in the article mentioned his Mormonism.

You have turned it into a theological thread.

Major denominational news, like Episcopalians with sodomite bishops or major announcements by the pope affirming particular doctrinal emphasis as it relates to public policy, are legitimate enough as news or political threads here. They always have been but within limits, not to promote or run down any denomination. Generally, they are best as news/political threads when they have a political impact (e.g. a pope reaffirming his church's teachings on abortion or sodomy marriage, how he expects his followers to vote, the kinds of policy he expects political leaders who belong to his church to adhere to).

But what you are doing is taking a political thread and turning it into a theological thread. Religious wars and evolution/creationist debate belong in the Smoky Backroom. That's how it's been for at least five years.

I’m one of the ones who went out on the limb to divulge Harry reids connections to the Mafia and his land deals here in Las Vegas. Much of what Harry gets away with is also due to the silencing of opposition to discussions of how his faith conflicts with his sordid associations.

He is a corrupt Dim. Nothing unusual. It's more unusual for a Dim party boss to not be corrupt. He does not get criticized because the press is biased and would say nothing about any Dim, their allies. Look at the Kennedys, Barney Frank, the Xlintons and how much the libmedia never mentions about them. Any FReeper knows (or should know) this by heart. But if Orrin Hatch, a Republican, was even one-tenth as corrupt as Harry Reid, the media and the Dims would be going insane over it, probably demanding the death penalty but only after extensive and cruel torture at Gitmo to determine if Karl Rove was somehow involved. But that has to do with being the libmedia and being Republicans and Democrats. It has nothing to do with Mormonism that I can see.

So, I want to thank you for pointing out how you wish to surpress candid speach in order to promote your candidate.

I am not asking anyone to suppress your free speech. I'm asking that political threads be political and religious threads be in the Backroom with the blogs and the vanities and the all the rest of the non-political, non-news threads. Politics and religion just don't mix well. And FR is a political forum.

If you think Romney's too liberal (and he may well be), then go after him on that basis. Plenty to find there to complain about, but less than there is on Giuliani. And Romney is clearly remaking himself for a national run. This is actually not unusual in either party.

When a governor (or a leftwing mayor) campaigns for the nomination of their party, they campaign for the support of the party's most active members, the membership base. In both parties, support and the nomination will almost certainly go to the candidate who represents the party base of their party best while attracting substantial numbers of independents and crossover voters. While the record of every candidate is fair game to be examined along with their personal character and background, they do have opportunity to embrace their party's base, its platform and issues. Romney has that opportunity now. If he fails, then we should oppose him and look elsewhere. But it would be regrettable given his optimism and pro-growth, smaller-government agenda. We should be looking for conservative candidates who will commit to the broad conservative agenda, not imposing religious litmus tests.

To give an example, I oppose Giuliani. But I don't need to attack Catholicism to do it. Of course, he's not even a Catholic in good standing as far as I can tell. But I don't start bashing Roman Catholic doctrine (which is an occasional hobby of mine) just to get at Giuliani. And the fact that I relish catching Mormon missionaries knocking on the doors of friends or family so I can have a nice long sciptural discussion with those Mormon young people has nothing to do with it (you know, that discussion that ends with the older one tugging the younger missionary away?). I assure you, I do have pretty impeccable anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic Backroom credentials here.

Maybe Romney will prove too liberal as well, just like the leftwing mayor. More likely, he could prove to be to lukewarm, neither liberal nor conservative enough to catch fire. But I do notice he is getting bolder and doing well, like denouncing McStain-Feingold and Pelosi's pilgrimage to kneel at the feet of the terrorist Syrian regime recently. So I don't think we can or should say he is too liberal just yet. He has a window of opportunity here to establish a commitment to conservatives on a broad front, especially before Thompson announces. But if Romney will not commit to us, then we should not take him seriously. And being just a little better or more ambiguous than Giuliani is not enough to receive warm conservative support.

Yes, please advise the moderator, and may your stay on Kolob bring you a nice tan.

I take Mormonism about as seriously as I do Battlestar Galactica. Or is Mitt Romney (a.k.a. the Evil Mormon Supergenius) also responsible for the revival of the only Mormon space-opera ever produced for network television?

[George W. Bush]

By the way, the only way my posts could raise hackles so much is if what I say about Mormonism was 1) demonstrably utterly false OR 2) demonstrably and utterly true.

FR is not an anti-Mormon site. It's Breaking News, Front Page and even Extended News sections are for those sorts of articles found in newspapers or websites. That is their purpose.

I'm not suggesting you should not be allowed to discuss anything about Mormonism. But not on the 'front page' of our 'newspaper'. It belongs in the 'letters to the editor', at best. And that's the Smoky Backroom.

[George W. Bush]

And I’ve also written more than you will know about Harry Reid’s problems at great personal risk.

And we appreciate it. But Reid is corrupt and therefore dangerous because he is a Dim party boss in a state dominated by corrupt gambling interests, not because he's a Mormon. I think Reid could not survive an election in Utah. But Romney would walk away with it.

I'm not sure how you can tie Harry Reid to Romney.

Perhaps you don't recognize that from a conservative political standpoint, just as Scalia is a good Catholic and conservative, Teddy Kennedy and Rudy Giuliani are not? And that Harry Reid is a bad Mormon (and a corrupt Dim party boss in a corrupt state) and Romney is a generally wholesome and successful businessman? Reid is something they put up with. Romney is someone they're proud of. You should be able to see the difference between the two.

Now, if he's just too liberal, then oppose him for that. And maybe he is. I haven't decided yet.

[ZULU]

“More than half of respondents (54%) said they were more likely to vote for a candidate who is generally more conservative, while 37% said they would favor a more moderate candidate.”

I think New Hampshire is being colonized by New York City refugees, as has been Vermont, eastern PA and parts of Florida.

A wall should be put up around New York City and only certifiable patriotic Americans allowed out.

[George W. Bush]

Snake Pliskin, is that you?

[George W. Bush]

How can anyone see that picture and not think of the old communist rallies and other political events of the hard Left, generally led by the Left/liberal element originating in New York City?

Frightening to think he could even run for the Republican nomination. It's like being asked to take Lyndon LaRouche seriously as a Republican nominee in '08.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

[Tribune7]

I guess public funded abortions are not such a winning idea.

[KSCITYBOY]

I don’t trust Zogby

[George W. Bush]

That is one funny and crazy set of pictures! Not sure if I'd assign them all the same way. I liked your picks for Dick Morris and Thompson though. I hadn't seen those before.

But think of the poor dialup users. Maybe you could paste them all into a 'reasonable' sized single picture of a few hundred KB.