shapeshifting to cover RINOism, endless pandering,
GOP-backstabbing and, of course, accepting corrupt kickbacks from the BIGdig to AIG.
Posted on 04/06/2009 12:41:04 PM PDT by mnehring
OREM, Utah -- Kirk Jowers has an answer for whether Mitt Romney's presidential bid was lost because of Mormonism:
"I can unequivocally tell you that the answer is 'yes, no and maybe.'"
owers' comment elicited laughter at the "Mormonism in the Public Mind" conference on Friday, April 3, at Utah Valley University. He is director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah and associate director of the Institute of Public and International Affairs.
According to Jowers, in October 2007 many pundits were saying Romney was on his way to winning. He had focused on the early primaries and was overcoming the deficit of name recognition between him and John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. "It looked like he might actually run the table," Jowers said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mormontimes.com ...
I have no doubt that there are some who voted against Romney solely because he is a Mormon. But I am also quite certain that many voted against him solely because he did not hold conservative positions on their hot button issues.
1. He had already conceded before most of the conservative states even held their primaries.
2. He is extremely moderate.
“Except that McCain is more conservative than Romney is.”
Wow Mitt is right up there with the Drunk Kennedy.
I wasn’t saying you posted for that reason.
I am not even saying that Romney doesn’t have a lot of liberal sspects that should be criticized.
However, I think allowing anti-Mormon threads on FR diminishes the otherwise high quality of the web site.
But it’s not my web site, so I do next best, try to answer the attacks.
Nice of you to feel the pinch and confess.
We had no candidates, except Fred, and Fred was too damn lazy to run.”
Right now our Woman Palin and Bachmann are the only Ones with guts.
Wow that says a lot for our Party.
End of thread!!
Indeed, it is.
Right...
Try looking up the definition of Non Sequitur...
Also your post 25 was a hoot.
There was a time your were selling Mitt as the aspects” you now seem to want to acknowledge to bolter your “it's the anti Mormons fault” argument...
You mean you try to troll, and when that doesn’t work you troll s’more.
“Er, exactly why should anybody have “helped” Romney? He was even more of a RINO than McCain”
I do not think that Mitt was working for Obama like McQueeg was.
When will the postmortum/debriefing finally end ???
The election was 6 months ago and Romney dropped out 15 months ago...
There was a time you were selling Mitt as the conservative second coming, what are these new “liberal aspects” you now seem to want to acknowledge to bolster you “it's the anti Mormon's fault” argument...
Smart phones and freeping are a pain...
how could it have if Hussein’s didn’t?
Try iPhone where you can't cut and paste and the touch screen keeps trying to put in the wrong word.
Fool me once is a foreign concept to them...
Blackberry is worse, spell check adds HTML code sometimes...
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.
