Posted on 09/06/2007 6:01:57 AM PDT by Reaganesque
Riehl World View's Dan Riehl: "Based solely on my viewing the flow of the numbers from start to finish - on average, I honestly believe Romney resonated most strongly with the most people, conservative and moderate, in terms of the over all debate." (Dan Riehl, Riehl World View, http://www.riehlworldview.com/, 9/5/07)
Conservative Blogger's William Smith: "Mitt gives a great answer with regard to the responsibility of city government and state government." (William Smith, Conservative Blogger, http://www.conservativeblogger.com/, 9/5/07)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: Romney "[s]ays we have to have concern for the mother and change hearts and minds. Very nicely done." (Jennifer Rubin, The American Spectator, AmSpec Blog, http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp#7970, 9/5/07)
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "The focus on Romney and Giuliani reinforced the notion that the race right now is between those two men with former Sen. Fred Thompson who did not attend the debate as a potential wildcard." (Chris Cillizza, "GOP Debate Wrapup: Frontrunners Under Fire," The Washington Post's The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com, Posted 9/5/07)
Heading Right's Macranger: "Romney immediately scored with his point about de facto amnesty, and he talks about shutting down the 'magnets'. Romney's doing great so far..." (Macranger, Heading Right, Heading Right Blog, http://headingright.com/page/2/, 9/5/07)
The Washington Post's Eric Pianin: "Romney's response drew loud cheers; Giuliani's polite cheers. It speaks to the difficulty of any candidate who has something less than a black and white position when it comes to immigration." (Eric Pianin and Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post The Fix Blog, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/, Posted 9/5/07)
- Pianin: "Romney is working hard to make sure viewers know that he and Giuliani differ when it comes to immigration, seemingly slipping in the fact that New York was a 'sanctuary' city at every turn." (Eric Pianin and Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post The Fix Blog, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/, Posted 9/5/07)
National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "That was a serious answer from Romney [regarding intelligence and the War on Terror]. It channelled [sic] his own decision to refuse protection for an Iranian tyrant - one of those who is against us - while governor of Massachusetts. Going into mosques if they preach terror is a reasonable and necessary position. And one that someone who gets the stakes would espouse." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "Going Into Mosques," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, 9/5/07)
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Otherwise, Romney, being very familiar with New Hampshire's inner maw, had well-thought out answers for every other question, even as three of the first four turned, in some measure, on whether he flip-flopped." (Marc Ambinder, "And The Winners Are......," The Atlantic Blog, http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com, Posted 9/5/07)
National Review's Kate O'Beirne: "Romney's '462 events' In Iowa and New Hampshire alone also effective." (Kate O'Beirne, "Ready For The Questions," National Review's The Corner, http://corner.nationalreview.com, Posted 9/5/07)
Townhall's Mary Katherine Ham: "Mitt has a good line about his 'right to be kept alive' with respect to the government's response to terror." (Mary Katherine Ham, Townhall, Townhall blog, http://www.townhall.com/blog/MaryKatharineHam, 9/5/07)
Heading Right's JASmius: "So far, I think Romney gave the best answer [on immigration and sanctuary cities]." (JASmius, Heading Right, Heading Right Blog, http://headingright.com/page/2/, 9/5/07)
I guess we won’t see the boobs again for a while.
Jeri is a very pretty woman, isn’t she?
JohnnyZ, in your post #100, you said the following:
***
I have asked over and over and gotten no response:
No rebuttal to Romney’s current social liberal stances, supporting embryonic stem cell research and gay rights?
Silence.
No rebuttal to Romney’s current social liberal stances, supporting embryonic stem cell research and gay rights?
Post after post and you sidestep the issues — just close your eyes to the facts and support the Mormon, huh? Ignore the things you don’t like, because Mitt is the chosen one?
***
In Spiff’s post #106, he provides you with detailed information to address your concerns. It is pulled from outside sources, but you asked for it.
In your post #109, you dismiss the entire lot of information as “SPAM.” How can it be spam when you’ve specifically asked for it?
Tell me, why do you “just close your eyes to the facts and [oppose] the Mormon?”
I’ve seen the invective you’ve posted about the LDS Church in past threads. I have counted three posts in this thread where you’ve attacked Romney or his supporters for his religion. The answer is clear to me. You don’t oppose Romney because he’s wrong on issues. You oppose him because you’re a religious bigot. You do realize, don’t you, that this is not an effective method of persuasion?
But, keep it up. You’re only embarrassing yourself, and I get a kick out of watching that.
~”Once I put that together it all clicked. I will bet that incident is in that file and the Dems are ready to pull that woman out to prove Mitt is a right wing monster who is willing to let women die rather than have a health-related abortion.”~
Interesting connection. My gut tells me it’s too smart by half, but then I might be too dumb by half, too. Still, we’ve known about this point in Romney’s past for some time now; why would he only suddenly be concerned about it?
~”Mitt was unprepared on Iraq... sounding like a dim surrender monkey...”~
I did not get that from his answer. What I saw was a businessman saying, “Let’s get all the information we can before we make a final decision.” I do not think he’s in any sense a dove.
McCain’s answer demonstrated passion, and that was good; but essentially, McCain attacked Romney for saying what McCain then said. He decided to latch onto the word “apparently.” That was nitpicking and was childish.
Or blind faith. Why even have General Patreaus present a report if we're 100% sure 'it's working'?
Because I think the Dems having been saving it and now that Mitt is the only candidate with momentum they are prepared to use it against him, either now or in the general. If it’s true we’ll see it in the news. The general public doesn’t know anything yet, just us junkies on either side of the political field.
I could be wrong though. There are other possibilities.
Spiff's post addressed neither issue.
The point is, there's no way to address either issue, except by admitting that Romney fails on those issues -- and Mitt-worshipers cannot admit that Mitt is wrong to any degree.
Mitt has been consistent in saying that we will not be there long-term. Mitt is concerned about cutting spending, and while he wants to increase spending on the military, he doesn’t want to do it by keeping our troops in a perpetual state of war. We have to succeed, but we can’t keep them there forever.
Quote it.
C'mon.
Quote it.
I have said Mormonism isn't Christian, the view that pretty much all Christians share. It's also a view that most Mormons on this site have denounced at ignorant and hateful, which says more about them than anything.
I have counted three posts in this thread where you’ve attacked Romney or his supporters for his religion.
I have not attacked Mormonism. Quote where I did. QUOTE IT. However, it is clear to me that many Mormons support Mitt only because he is Mormon. If he were not Mormon, there is no way they would support him. They'd be calling him a phony, fake, liberal, etc. Sadly, they have let their common religion get in the way of their brains functioning, and they regard Mitt as their political savior and idol who can do no wrong. It's creepy, it's unhealthy to worship a politician like that, and it's blatant. They'll say the most irrational things to avoid admitting any fault with Mitt.
~”Quote it.”~
You’re right. The only example I could find from recent months was the following:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1829571/posts?page=78#78
That certainly isn’t enough to justify the charge I have leveled at you. It’s plain that I’ve confused you with others. You, sir, have my sincere apologies for my knee-jerk and unwarranted reaction.
~”I have said Mormonism isn’t Christian, the view that pretty much all Christians share. It’s also a view that most Mormons on this site have denounced at ignorant and hateful, which says more about them than anything.”~
That much you have said, and it is false. I am a Mormon, and I am a Christian, as I follow Jesus Christ and worship Him as my personal Savior. All else is details. As far as I’m concerned, that is the end of the discussion. Those who tell me I’m not a Christian because they are applying their traditional philosophies of what a Christian is are certainly ignorant, and a few of them are hateful.
~”However, it is clear to me that many Mormons support Mitt only because he is Mormon. If he were not Mormon, there is no way they would support him.”~
There are a few, but I reject the premise that there are “many.” Where such an attitude does exist, I am just as comfortable with the label of religious bigotry for religious-based support as I am for religious-based opposition. I do think you see Mormons where there are none - I doubt a third of the people on the Mitt ping list, for example, are LDS. Just as many of my LDS FReeper friends are Thompson supporters as Romney supporters at this stage. Personally, I’m about 60%/40% in Romney’s favor. Besides Thompson, I’m not even considering anybody else at this stage.
So, in that point, I maintain my position. You try to discredit many of Romney’s supporters on the grounds that they wouldn’t support him if they didn’t share his faith. Well, his base isn’t made up of Mormons. He’s attracted all types to his campaign, and by chalking up his support to some kind of transposed religious fanaticism (and for that, I do have quotes), you severely misunderstand and underestimate his appeal.
I do think McCain got to Romney on that one. Of course the surge is working, I don’t know why Mitt waffled.
I don’t know where you got the idea that Mormons worship Romney. Sometimes he(Mitt) is too cute with his answers. I actually am beginning to like Mike Huckabee. He seems to bring a great deal of clarity to the equation. I acknowledge that Mitt is a great intellect and a fantastic organizer and yet Huckabee seems to nail his points better. Isn’t he a Baptist? Am I supposed to hate him? To me, he seems like a very nice guy with a big heart. Do you think he hates Mormons? If so, I guess I will be getting my check back.
Reminds me of a used car salesman.
Of course we will be keeping troops there for a very long time but not (hopefully) in the same numbers that we have now. There are too many nutcases in the Middle East not to have some bases from which to strike if we have too. I, for one, do not like the idea of spending this much money and then abandoning a foothold. Whatever the cost, Western Civilization depends on a low level of insanity in the middle east which our troops insure. The middle east will always be the focus of attention as long as oil is the lifeblood of civilization.
We already have bases in Qatar and in Saudi Arabia. Keeping our troops in Iraq just feeds the notion that we are occupiers. I prefer Mitt’s position. Win through strength, withdraw and position on a standby basis through other nearby bases.
Leave and you risk a flip to the dark side, a shia hell in coordination with Iran. I can’t see withdrawing over the horizon.
It is quite interesting that Mitt Romney threads are gaining so much interest on FR. It only takes a couple of hours to get several hundred replies. :)
Then you will be stuck with Hillary. Mitt’s position is the only position that the American people will accept. They won’t accept Harry Reid and surrender and they won’t accept eternal warfare.
There are a couple different points here that you confuse.
* There are many of Mitt's Mormon supporters on FR. When conservative Mormons support a "moderate" Mormon who has paid lip service (if any) to Mormon teaching in the past, and obstinately refuse to admit that Mitt has any faults, to what reason should I ascribe this obstinacy and blindness but to a fanatical devotion to a coreligionist? These people refuse to admit the truth of direct quotes, even ones with video evidence, even signed statements by Romney. That is not normal behavior. It is bizarre and irrational. I call it worship. (No, not all of the Mitt-supporting Mormons on FR are like this, but most of the most vocal ones are.)
* There are Mitt's non-Mormon supporters on FR. They are a mixed bunch. Some are moderates who approve of Mitt's moderation. Some are religious conservative who love a conversion story. Some are financial guys who want a prez from the Street. Some think he's pretty.
* Then there are Mitt's supporters 'out there'. There are his political supporters, with varying motives. There are the people who have seen Mitt on TV telling them how great he is and so they're with Mitt for now. I think those supporters are soft and will fade.
"I'm not a Romney fan, but that whole scene was scripted by someone who probably was shilling for Giuliani and it was WAY out of line."
"It was at that point that I knew this whole debate was a farce. I wanted to turn it off at that point, but it is hard to turn away when you are observing a train wreck in progress."
Couldn't agree more. This was an attempted hit on Mitt, designed to do maximum damage. Fox News should be ashamed....way out of line and not called for.
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.