Posted on 08/14/2007 3:49:05 PM PDT by Rameumptom
Don’t too carried away accusing people of being RINO’s and flip floppers, remember the fit people were throwing over President Bush before he was elected, please give some time and don’t be so quick to lable people. As far as your assessment of Rudy goes, I agree that’s too much to ignore, even if it is early.
“For me, Mitt is the man (unless Fred can sway me towards him).”
Agreed.
~”I have been pointing this same thing out for quite a while and have come under whithering attack.”~
FC, TommyDale made the point in the context of a political factor deserving due consideration. He did not attack the religion or use it as an avenue to demean the character of the candidate.
You, on the other hand, have taken low road in months past. That is why you have come under whithering attack.
I think the religious factor is a valid item of discussion when estimating its impact on the effectiveness of the candidate. I even started up a thread that tried to focus on this dimension. But every time we have tried to get such a discussion going in a reasonable fashion, it has been used as an angle to attack the LDS Church. It’s natural that we Mormons have reacted defensively.
I hope we can move forward and actually discuss politics on the political forums.
It’s not about his money, it’s about his organization. Much of the money he spent was getting his message out and name recognition. He did that admirably, with a kickin’ organization.
Do you -really- think the South would go blue from a Romney candidacy?
I find the idea laughable, regardless of the candidate.
Otherwise, outside of the South Romney’s religion would play just fine, and may even provide a boost.
Any downside of Romney’s religion would be ameliorated by the fact that the vast majority of its impact will be in the Southern states. That makes in a non-issue in political terms.
~”Why would women, REPUBLICAN WOMEN, support a philandering, cheating, nasty, disloyal husband like Giuliani??”~
At this point, I think his appeal is security along with name ID. Security wins big among republican women. Both will fade, though as other candidates become well known, and demonstrate themselves acceptable on the security issue.
A lot will happen in the next five months. Giuliani’s support is not collapsing, but it is steadily eroding wherever other candidates are campaigning. He’ll be a formidable force, but he’s no juggernaut.
~”Therefore, Romney’s win in Iowa is not a major victory for him.”~
It wasn’t a substantive victory, but it was a symbolic victory - just as important at this stage in the game.
If you really oppose Romney, you would do well not to underestimate his consistent successes.
You’re spot on. 2 Rinos, a rock and a hard place just about sums it up.
I prefer the word “prejudice” over “bigoted” because prejudice means “pre-judge”. You don’t know what kind of President Mitt would be and you don’t care because you have “pre-judged” him based on his religion.
Which blows the argument out of the water that the South doesn't support northeastern liberals.
Mitt is to the right of Rudy on the issues. The glaring difference? Religion. It's not about abortion or immigration.
Mitt is clearly the cream of the crop, and as cream naturally rises to the top, so will Mitt.
I just saw him on Sean Hannity tonight. Bob Bechel (SP?) was trying put words in Mitt’s mouth and Mitt firmly and assertively refused to let him. He was great! It’s clear from listening to him that he is clearly the smartest and most thoughtful (among other great qualities) candidate in the Republican field.
You said: Mitt is the candidate the Dims fear the most.
I say: Can you just see Hillary on the stage debating Mitt Romney?
nuf said.
To know him is to love him. Check out the facts about him, my friend.
His opponents turned tail and ran rather than risk a humiliating defeat. Mitt won soundly either way.
Great insight, CoD. I hadn’t thought of that angle.
If there is one thing that Mitt Romney has proven himself totally incapable of doing, it is speaking straight.
One day he's claiming he used to be pro-choice but now isn't, the next he's saying he was never pro-choice to begin with -- all these wormy statements are coming back to bite him.
It can't be repeated enough:
46% of voters say there is No Chance they would vote for Romney
Romney is the only major candidate in either party with higher NEGATIVE ratings than positive.
The election hasn't even begun and he's already alienated a huge number of people with his used car salesman schtick.
“Don’t too carried away accusing people of being RINO’s and flip floppers, remember the fit people were throwing over President Bush before he was elected, please give some time and don’t be so quick to lable people.”
And those folks ended up being right.
he said he was wrong. he’s pro-life now. what’s the problem? Most Americans are in the middle on this issue. They will forgive waffling on a contreversial issue as long as he doesn’t try to have it both ways at the same time. He’s staked out a pro-life position and he hasn’t wavered from that position since he became pro-life. Next issue, please.
We are talking about the same president that gave us the Patriot Act, the Bush tax cuts eliminating the estate tax and lowering all marginal rates, the President that gave us Judge Roberts and Alito, the same President that opposed stem cell research...I could go on? So you don't get your way on immigration and education. The rest of us are pretty happy, in general. The problem with Bush has been his approval ratings have been stuck in the 30's that he hasn't been able to get Congress to pass anything. I'm ready for a change, but not because Bush wasn't conservative enough. Please!
Besides the fact that I don't buy his snake oil:
He can't get his story straight.
In a week's span Romney spawned two major stories, one where he claimed that yes, he used to be pro-choice, but now is not, and another where he claimed he was never pro-choice.
He has made statement after statement that has later been shown to be false, exaggerated, misleading, inconsistent, or just plain foolish -- Mitt has made more gaffes in this campaign than all the other Republicans combined.
Consider Gun Rights. It's bad enough that Mitt supported the Brady Bill, supported the federal AWB, signed a state AWB, continues to support an AWB, and continues to rail against so-called "assault weapons". And then after criticizing the NRA, he purchases a lifetime membership. Hey, whatever, people who are really into the 2nd Amendment have already ruled him out, some others don't care so much. But then he comes out with these stupid little lies: he claims he owns a gun and then has to admit it's not true, his son owns a gun. He claims to be a lifelong hunter and then has to back down when it's revealed he's only been hunting twice in his life, plus some unspecified number of times hunting ... "varmints"???
It makes him look ridiculous to people who don't even care about abortion or guns that much. And he does that kind of thing all the time. And that's a big reason why his negatives are so high, because people read about all these things, or hear about it on Leno, and they can tell he's a total phony.
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.