Posted on 05/07/2007 7:26:37 AM PDT by meandog
Washington pundits in the throes of post-election doldrums are notoriously eager to find a fresh face to crown the "early favorite" for the next presidential campaign. Even by those standards, however, the speed with which they flocked to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been remarkable. Last December, barely a month after Bush's reelection, George Will devoted a column to Romney's potential, and a quick succession of profiles in the Weekly Standard, National Review, and The Atlantic Monthly appeared in the spring. Who could blame them? Romney has had a successful business career (he is known to most Americans as the man who saved the Salt Lake City Olympics). He comes from noble moderate Republican lineage (his father was governor of Michigan). He is attractive (the National Review sighed over his "chiseled handsomeness"). And he grabbed national headlines--and the attention of social conservatives--by standing up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage. Just as Democrats are always looking for a liberal nominee from a red state, Republicans dream about a candidate like Romney: a social conservative from the most cerulean of blue states who can please the base while not scaring off moderates.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonmonthly.com ...
...while there is plenty to admire about the LDS Church (strong family values, hard work ethic, missions, etc.) I just cannot get it out of my head that Joseph Smith not too much different than the Prophet Mohammad when it came to heavenly "visions," angelic visits, plural marriages, and fairy tales.
George Will is usually wrong.
I’m more interested in what criteria Romney qualified for to receive the Log Cabin Republican endorsement in 1994.
“Mitt Romney’s Evangelical Problem”
This is the one of the current “big three” that I would vote for in the general. Other two? Pound sand.
I am an evangelical.
But I totally believe that the single biggest reason the media pushes Romney is because the media perceives him as ultimately doomed as a presidential candidate. The media believes that the GOP base (evangelical Christians) will not turn out for a Mormon, and so the media desperately wants a Mormon to be our nominee.
I happen to like Romney well enough, and I would not have a problem voting for him. But I like Hunter and Thompson a lot better.
“’ManTan’ Romney”.......
quote by Michael Savage
Just for info, this is an article from Sept 2005.
They gave their endorsement to him in 2000. He didn’t apply for it.
In 2004, they did not endorse George W. Bush.
-—This is the one of the current “big three” that I would vote for in the general. Other two? Pound sand.-—
Ditto!
My uncle the libertarian secular humanist says he’s unlikely to vote for Romney because he’s a devout Mormon.
"Although Log Cabin supported the election of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election, in September of 2004 LCR's board voted to withhold its endorsement of President George Bush's re-election"
Supported Bush in 2000. That is not endorsed.
The verbiage is important since they have an application process to receive endorsement. Which is why I want to know what criteria Romney fit for that in his election against Kennedy.
I agree—Romney’s biggest problem isn’t that he’s Mormon, but that he is devout. Most people in the US who claim to be religious do not actually follow the tenets of their faith. I like to call them Kennedy Catholics (as opposed to Mel Gibson Catholics) or Bill Clinton Baptists.
It really threatens people’s lackadaisical feel-good approach to religion when somebody comes along who actually lives their faith.
Blue-blood establishment liberal.
Oops, I mean, he put aside a lifetime of liberalism to become conservative JUST in time to run in the GOP presidential primary.
What a phony!
If that is the standard, then we can't elect anybody except a good fundamentalist christian. Unless we are jewish, then we have to elect a good Jewish person. Or if we are muslim, then we have to vote for a muslim.
The argument is that if we elect anybody that doesn't meet our definition of Christianity, we are somehow endorsing opposition to Christianity. Our founders were clear that religious tests were not required in government, I would argue that they are not generally appropriate for choosing your candidate either.
Good morning.
Worse than that a Massachusettes liberal.
Romney has more than a religious "problem". He has a RINO, non conservative, anti-gun problem.
I'll do all I can here in New Hampshire to see that he, the NYC gun grabber and the Arizona RINO anti free speech and gun grabber never become President.
He wrote to them promising that "as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent [Ted Kennedy]."
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf
"If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will." -- Mitt Romney
Pretty damning statements from Slick Willard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.