Skip to comments.James Carville: Romney’s Mormon religion still a problem [Mitt silent on bishop, gov roles]
Posted on 07/08/2012 8:01:01 AM PDT by Colofornian
n an appearance on WWL radio in New Orleans earlier this week, James Carville surveyed the Romney campaign and said the presumptive GOP nominee still hasnt overcome the issue of his Mormon religion.
According to Carville, who has a forthcoming book called Its the Middle Class, Stupid, Romneys reluctance to talk openly about that is keeping him from dominating the campaign against President Barack Obama.
One of the problems that Romney has honestly is the thing against him the most is his religion, Carville said. And he doesnt understand the reasons. He doesnt talk about that. He was a bishop in his church. And he doesnt talk about the one public office that he held much and that was being the governor of Massachusetts. So, he talks about Bain, but thats become sort of a big issue in the campaign. Hes got to, you know if you look at the numbers, Romney should win this campaign.
So, I think Romney is going to come out I think theyre going to recalibrate their strategy a little bit, he said. I think theyre going to have to. And he just going to have to be more aggressive talking about some of the things he has done and give people a window into as who he is.
The best thing for Romney to do, Carville said, would be to highlight his ability to fix things.
I would say, look people are looking for someone that can fix things, Carville said. And you got to tell them Romney is that guy. You know, you accomplished that with the Olympics. You actually accomplished that when you were governor of Massachusetts. And you actually accomplished that when you ran Bain.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/06/carville-romneys-religion-still-a-problem-with-his-presidential-candidacy/#ixzz202gM8gr0
As big a problem as Obama's Muslim religion?
In April, I listed -- and linked -- 11 FR threads from 2008-2011 that focused on Obama's ties to Islam...or apparently his "closet Muslim ties."
I have no doubt that Obama caters to Islam.
Why, Obama may have even been a Muslim Kenyan boy.
I am still NOT 100% convinced that Obama is an active Muslim. (Anymore than Rubio -- who was a Mormon at age 12 -- is still active LDS...he's NOW under a Catholic umbrella)
What surprises me are the posted claims that FREEPERs make on this -- pure assumptions -- without offering proof. And I say that as the only FREEPER I know of who at least offered some comprehensive visible evidence of Obama's ties to Islam.
What secondly surprises me is the literal of DOZENS of Freepers who have chastised the Inmans for bringing up Romney's religion -- why they've YET to be consistent and chastise posters like you who bring up another POTUS candidate's religious ties (Obama's).
Can you spell i-n-c-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-t h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y???
Wrong. We will have a voice in a Republican-dominated Congress, which is much more likely to move hard right under Obama, and much more likely to drift to the left under Romney.
So when Utah voters said in an exit poll in '08 that they voted for Romney NOT because of the "issues" -- but because of his personal "qualities" (wink-wink, nod-nod...Mitt's a fellow Mormon), were Mormon voters in Utah practicing "religious bigotry" because they voted PRIMARILY or ONLY because of Mitt's religious status???
That is a stubborn fact that ABOers work hard to ignore. They only think in terms of voting "against" Obama, and fail to think that their vote "against" Obama is a vote FOR having the Republican party capitulate completely to the liberal statist agenda.
That possible, yes, but telling a conservative to vote for a third party is, in fact, a vote for Obama - it provides, in effect, insurance for an Obama win. Geez....
You can FIGHT and USE YOUR FRANCHISE to deny the next president, guaranteed to be a statist, a mandate. You can vote to make the next president a mockery. You can vote to put liberalism on defense.
Or you can join ABOers in their fully understandable fear which has them on the verge of making a desperate move to avoid Obama, but at a price that guarantees a bad outcome. See my tagline.
Ah, a classic post, SVCW!
To exemplify by analogy, it's the liberals who treat "CHOICE" as a free-floating intransitive verb...without feeling bothered to explain that the "choice" they are making is to dismember offspring.
Likewise, those quick to the draw on an "anti" label don't even begin to defend Mitt's liberalism...his waffling characteristics...
Nor do most of them even want to wade into Mormonism's truth claims.
It's just easier for them to go the route many Dems take...start tossin' out personal attack labels like "anti" (or in OTHER cases, "bigot")...never mind ANYTHING of the content of what's actually under discussion!!!!
Well, that'd be a good start...
May I suggest he also...
...Admit that RomneyJudgePicking was quite a liberal undertaking in MA, too?
...Concede he was still using "option" as a "choice" word for how parents could "donate" their offspring to "research" as late as Dec of '07...and that's not exactly a "pro-life" thing to do...???
...Confess that when temple Mormons say they are "gods in embryos" on their way to full-grown godhood status, that it's a statement rank with hubris, arrogance, and pride...riles up THE God of the universe...and sets our "nation of heretics" on a fuller course not only toward polytheism but rank heresy???
Translate that into a coherent sentence and I might have an answer.
Wrongo. If you're in a solidly blue state, it's moot. If you're in a solidly red state, it's moot. It's totally up in the air as to which guy, Obama or Romney, will get the electoral votes to win, and that is based more on your state than on your vote. However, the popular vote has real meaning when the majority in the popular vote opposed the guy in the White House.
A third party vote is no more likely to help Obama than it is to help Romney, because both Obama and Romney have low support within their own parties. In fact, it is this very thing, the RARE phenomenon of a sitting first-term president who is loathed by so many who voted for him, that presents just about as ideal a scenario as it gets to risk third party for the intention of splitting the popular vote into a referendum plurality.
A third party vote is a vote to deny the next socialist president a mandate. It is neutral in that it doesn't favor either Obama or Romney.
The mormon leadship has since the beginning fostered the "we are persecuted" mantra all the way to now when the LDS Corporation is worth multi-billions of dollars. Some "persecution"!
A complete fallacy. There's only one way for you to vote for Obama, and that is to mark his name on your ballot. PERIOD.
Fin, don’t you get really annoyed with the irrational statement that if you do not support the liberal called Romney you are voting for obama.
The argument is idiotic at best and stupid at worst.
“Confess”...? Sure, if you live in a state where you are certain Obama is going to win, or where you are certain your vote isn’t needed to beat him, then move to a state where you can make a difference. I happen to live where my vote counts. Not only that, there are other ways to support or defeat a candidate, as in verbal support, or financial support. If you live in California where your vote isn’t going make difference, encourage people who live in swing states to make a real vote against Obama. This election might surprise a few voters in a few states where they think they won’t make a difference. Your logic doesn’t change the fact that there are two choices at the table that matter.
I have posted to you clearly that I believe bringing up Romney is not unfair to the ISM, but to post thread after thread on the religion forum with the sole intent to attack Romney is misuse of the religion forum, in my honest opinion. If you or Elsie or Tennessee nana brings up Milt's 'membership' in the faux melchizedek priesthood, this is an entry to expose the vagaries of that priesthood. But you have been using the religion forum in avery different way, as evidenced by this very thread, where the first 100 plus posts are SOLELY attack politics with nothing to do with the religion forum other than the title and Carvile's comments, which have been ignored for th emost part in order to just spew attacks at Romney.
Your sycophants then leap tot he occasion to msicharacterize and try to push buttons, calling anyone questioning your misuse as 'rmoneybots' or 'promoting your man Mitt' or more likely 'not a real conservative' or not a real Christian'. Look at yourself, demanding I take your chosen path of deceit. Sorry, you're going to be disppointed, Colo. I won't march to your drums. You can rant and spittle all you like but I will not say what you demand because I have made it clear why I would even bring Mitt up on a religion thread, to illustrate some heretical aspect of the ISM, not to attack the liberal candidate. And you know that yet you try this little foolishness!
It would appear that you’re the one who has ‘lost it’. The thread goes in the direction you steered it for more than a hundred political attack posts, with zero about the ISM until Elsie redirects the focus momentarily, then exploiters of the religion forum jump right back on the political avenue (this is a religion forum where the ISM is the focus; this is not a political or activism forum where people of politics are fair game and the focus). Maybe you can get a caucus designation, where only hate romney posts are allowed, to fit the apparent agenda you have. That would keep folks like me off your threads, Colo. Make you happy ...
I know. And then as icing on the cake, when you refer to such folks as "Romney supporters" -- a reasonable description because they are a) planning to vote for Romney band b) urging others to do the same -- they come completely unglued and take considerable offense.
ABO is an affliction. I pray most are healed of it before November.
>> ?Why are you supporting him
Because I couldn’t care less about his religion as long as it isn’t Muslim or a follower of Jerimiah Wright.
Because in a election you are for one guy, or the other guy. There is no middle ground. Why do you support Obama and Holder?
I think you should put the moonshine jug down, MHG.
I asked why are you supporting him?
You are correct it’s one guy or the other, but you have chosen Romney - why?
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.