4)I could never vote for a guy with the name “Huckabee,” but apparently a lot of other people can.
5)Utah voters are the smartest voters in the world (Nevada, Montana,
Wyoming, Alaska, Minnesota, Maine, Michigan and Colorado voters are
also pretty darned smart. Sorry, Massachusetts voters are not very
smart overall — just look at who else they’ve elected over the years).
6)McCain and Huckabee’s maneuver in West Virginia was pretty darned slimey.
7)Or maybe McCain and Huckabee’s maneuver was just good politics, and
if Mitt Romney had been able to pull it off I would have been saying
how smart he is.
8)It looks increasingly likely that conservative Republicans like
myself are basically going to opt out of this election from June until
November. I just can’t see that much of a difference between McCain and
Hillary/Obama. I’ve tried and tried to be optimistic about this, but in
the end McCain is simply unacceptable to me as a conservative. I may
not vote at all for the first time in a presidential election since
1984.
9)I think a lot of liberals, when they look at the desperate tactics
used by the Clintons so far, are starting to understand why
conservatives dislike the Clintons so much. It’s not their stand on the
issues — I think you can make a strong argument that the Clintons are
a moderating influence on the Democrats and that’s not a bad thing —
it’s the complete lack of principles. I have yet to meet a Mormon
Democrat who supports Clinton over Obama.
10)It’s going to be a very long four years starting Jan. 2009.
what it is like to be a Libertarian or Green third party voter. Even
though McCain is closest to my political beliefs (closer than Hillary
or Obama), I cannot in good conscience vote for him because someday I
will have to defend that vote. His administration, if he is elected,
will be a huge disaster, and I will have to admit I voted for him when
the inevitable disaster begins. I’d rather be able to say that I
couldn’t vote for him because I knew he would be a disaster from the
start.
I look forward to the end of the war in Iraq.
reaction to Romney’s candidacy. I’ve always felt like I was a part of
the mainstream Republican party, though I’ve recognized that I’m more
conservative than some. I thought the party generally fit my beliefs
and ideals. However, when I saw how Romney has been received, I
realized that we (members of the LDS church) are welcomed as a voting
block but not as recipients of that vote. It’s been frustrating, and I
have entertained thoughts about the possibility of a third party that
would include us without prejudice. I really didn’t realize the level
of animosity and/or fear that is held for us and our beliefs.
I’ve learned that Americans truly are persuaded easily by the media. They don’t read the issues or research the candidates. They do whatever the media tells them to do. And because of that, our country is going to be in a lot of hurt.
It looks like I’ll be voting for the lesser of two evils. Again.
I’ve learned that Americans truly are persuaded easily by the media.
They don’t read the issues or research the candidates. They do whatever
the media tells them to do. And because of that, our country is going
to be in a lot of hurt.
It looks like I’ll be voting for the lesser of two evils. Again. —–
points 1 AND 2 above) that Romney primarily is losing because of his
religion. I think there are a long list of other factors that need to
be considered. Specifically, in the South, he did not lose because he
is a Mormon. That is one factor, but I really think he lost because his
style of politics simply does not connect with Southern voters.
Having said that, I know how you feel about the third party situation.
I have always considered third parties a waste of time because they can
never win, but a true Reagan conservative third party would get my vote
in November because I can’t in good conscience vote for the other
alternatives.
In that case, thanks for giving Minnesota its props.
I have yet to meet a Mormon Democrat who supports Clinton over Obama.
Granted, we have not actually met, but I prefer Clinton, solely because
I think the likes of Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao would eat Obama for
lunch. Still, I am seriously contemplating casting my vote for McCain
next Tuesday, so I am just a lost cause.
Utah voters are smart? Didn’t we vote for Perot?
Obama. What do you think of my point 9)?
there are other horses in the race, run them out using whatever means
necessary. Hillary and McCain have the same owners, Huckabee, too, who
is being used to take delegates away from Mitt. Once Mitt drops,
Huckabee will drop and McCain will get the nomination. McCain’s going
to take a dive for Hillary in the general election, just like Kerry
took a dive for Bush. Obama is obviously the democratic choice, so the
election fixers are having a hard time getting Hillary just enough
delegates to win. Romney was a useful tool, but not owned by the same
owners of Hillary, McCain, and Huckabee (and others). When mormons
realize that Mitt was gamed, that he got votes taken from him, they’ll
be pretty sore. They are going to realize that having a President
Hillary or President McCain is pretty scary. Go watch Hacking Democracy
and learn where the real battle for the elections lie. Pay attention to
what people outside the establishment are saying about things. Mitt
unfortunately believed the establishment when he wasn’t even one of
them. They don’t need him anymore and he is being cast aside, much to
the astonishment of him and his supporters. That’s what we’ve learned
about the election so far.
I’ll repost the comment I made at Mormon Mentality because I’m feeling
lazy and have things to do…
Even if you accept that anti-Mormon sentiment had something to do with last night, it gets tricky.
Did they vote against Romney because he’s Mormon? Or did they vote against him because they don’t trust him?
Well, I’d argue that a large reason Romney comes off fake and untrustworthy is, in-part, due to his Mormonism.
I’ve been following the internet buzz on Mormonism from evangelicals for couple years now and one thing has become very plain.
They – don’t – trust – Mormons.
In their eye’s we are sneaky opportunists who will do and say
anything to get the missionaries in your door. We will soft-pedal on
our theology, we will lie about our temples, we will try to pretend
we’re “just like you.� And over the entire thing, we put out
those “deliberately� theologically uninformative feel-good TV ads
“Family – Isn’t it About Time?â€� But of course, that’s just an
act we put on to lure you into our cult! In fact, the only reason we
have nice families is a PR stunt, didn’t you know?
When Mormons try to softpedal on theological differences, it simply
raises evangelical defenses. They are quite convinced we simply are
different. When we try to act like we’re the same, it tends to piss
them off. To them, Gordon B. Hinckley isn’t the forward-thinking
leader who reached out to other faiths. To them, he was a used car
salesman (or an Amway salesman, take your pick).
I hope it’s obvious to most of you how Romney played right into these
popular stereotypes. Squeaky clean image, nice family, soft-pedaling on
all theological issues, switching positions…
This is exactly why there was such a strong polling correlation between
those who cited his “flip-flops� as a reason for their dislike and
those who simply dislike Mormons. To these folks flip-flopping and
Mormonism are synonyms.
The reason people voted against Romney were for substantive reasons
that were rooted in, and based on a popular prejudice. Romney is
feeling the full force of years of anti-Mormon image branding.
Face it, other GOP candidates have changed their positions on the
issues before. Why was Romney such a big screaming deal? Because he had
already been branded by years of overt and subtle marketing in Southern
Baptist congregations as just the latest edition of “sneaky
Mormonism.�
the Repubs in states that don’t win for the Repubs in Nov. (NY, NJ, CA,
etc.) and Obama won Dems in states that don’t win for the Dems in Nov.
(w/ the exception of IL and two small states, CT & DE). It appears
that more Dems have turned out to vote in these primaries than have
Repubs – not a good sign for Nov.
For Romney to win, he needs to improve his recognition and reputation.
Romney, as a good business executive, should cut his losses (monetary
and delegate) and get out of the race – today is not too soon but after
04 Mar is too late. Like Reagan, after his loss to Ford in ’76, Romney
needs to start a national campaign to get the needed recognition and
reputation. Reagan revived his national radio broadcasts for 3 years
and won a lot of converts to his next run for presidency. Romney needs
to do something similar (radio might be too crowded these days – maybe
something with the internet?) and try again in 4 years.
An astute and accurate assessment.
on the basis of dislike for Huckabee and the poor showing of Clinton
(coming in third) in Utah.
+++
For the good of the party too…
But he says he’s not. Which is silly since McCain just need convince
Huckabee to stay in and that’ll divide the anti-McCain vote.
Most of you youngsters won’t get this analogy, but if you’re 50 or
over, or are good history students, you’ll see the similarities.
I think we’re going to have a Carter/Ford/Reagan situation again.
Carter = Obama. Inept newcomer who is elected president based on promises of change and cleaning up Washington.
Ford = McCain. Pseudo-conservative who the GOP nominated, who then lost to the democrat “candidate of change”.
Reagan = Romney. Real conservative who lost the nomination one year (as
Reagan lost nomination to Ford because americans didn’t understand why
we need a conservative, and as a governor, he was not well known enough
on the national scene), but who went on to win big 4 years later after
America realized what a bozo they elected previously.
Bookslinger, you are spot on with #15! Romney may go down to defeat in ’08, but he will be back to clean-up the mess in ’12!
“I just can’t see that much of a difference between McCain and Hillary/Obama.”
That may be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. McCain in
pro-life and pro-Iraq War. Does not sound like Obama to me. McCain is
opposed to increased government spending on health care. McCain loves
Ronald Reagan.
Now, I am an Obama fan because I disagree with Republicans and McCain on all of these issues.
Romney=Reagan. Well, he has for the last two years. Either way, if he
is the Reagan Republican does that mean the he will use poor minorities
as scapegoats for our nation’s problems and actively promote economic
inequality and greed. Or does that just mean the he will support
military dictatorship around the world. You all must be swelling with
pride.
“defeat in ’08, but he will be back to clean-up the mess in ’12!”
That is a big IF. Who is to say Huckster wouldn’t be thinking the same
thing? Also, you don’t know who will be running in the Republican
ticket with them. It is a nice daydream, but mostly without facts to
back it up. My own prediction is that Romney is out big time. He has
nowhere else to go for name recognition. The one thing I think he could
do is become governor of Utah, but again unlikely. As for the next
Mormon to run for Pres.? It will be a Democrat 30 years from now.
have commented on this thread without getting insulting to anybody.
This thread will remain that way or comments will be deleted. You have
been warned.
This is huge!
If you consider yourself a conservative Christian and you want someone
with conservative values in the White House you must vote for Romney.
Dr Dobson said in a statement yesterday that a vote for Huckabee is
essentially a vote for McCain and if McCain wins the nomination he
won’t vote.
Listen to his statment:
http://election.newsmax.com/dobson_mccain/
Now pass this information on to your fellow Christian friends.
http://www.graceforgrace.com
Geoff,
Sorry. However, your anti-McCain comments are inaccurate. Does truth
matter or only preference? I also do not believe that an informed
conservative like yourself really thinks that McCain is the same as
Clinton or Obama. It is overblown campaign rhetoric.
Man! You Romney people are very sensitive and no longer any fun. No more M* for me. Peace.
Chris H.,
As someone who has lived in AZ under the McCain blight, I can vouch for
his liberal views: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc., etc., etc.
McCain, in my view, is wrong on free speech, wrong on immigration and
wrong on taxes.
I have a great deal of respect for McCain’s war record and appreciate his sacrifice for our country.
That said, I don’t want him as my senator or president.
much the same. I understand where you are coming from. But if you knew
more about how conservatives think and act and what we want in a
president, you might be more empathetic. Let’s put it this way: I
firmly believe Bush’s failure is that he was not conservative enough.
He cooperated with the Dems way too much (unnecessary and costly
prescription drug bill) and did not use conservative principles in too
many areas. I firmly believe if he had vetoed more spending bills his
approval ratings would be above 50 percent. So, when I look at McCain I
see another Republican who will ruin what the party should stand for. I
see massive spending increases, bad choices on judges, and a contempt
for social conservatives. In short, just what I’d get from Clinton and
Obama. Sorry, to me they are the same thing politically.
“He cooperated with the Dems way too much”
Sigh.
Geoff B.,
For what it’s worth, you seem to equate spending with Democrats, which
has been clearly shown to be false (or, at best, partially true). You
argue that, because Bush spent, he’s not a true conservative. While
this may be true (or may not; I’m not at all interested in what
constitutes a “true” conservative, any more than I care what it is a
“true” liberal believes), he is clearly a true Republican; just because
he isn’t doing what you want him to do doesn’t mean he’s agreeing too
much with the Democrats. I can’t, as a matter of fact, remember more
than two or three substantive things he’s done (I’m not counting saying
nice things about the troops or other nonsubstantive things) in which
he agreed with the Democrats (although the current Congressional
Democrats have caved to him way, way too often; the problem, though,
was them agreeing with Bush, not his agreeing with them).
cooperates and agrees with Republicans on the war in Iraq. Democrats
wanted him out of office because he “cooperated with the Repubs” way
too much.
Sigh. 🙂
It cuts both ways.
Brian,
I thought that the Dems were acting as psycho about Lieberman as you
all are about McCain. I am glad to see that you are using the actions
of Moveon.org to justify your own actions. I am too their left and do
not condone such tactics. In a two-party system we need wide coalitions
to win. I thought the right understood that better than my side. Oh
well, good for me.
the Romney obituaries. I consider myself a right-leaning independent,
if I had to give myself a label, but I think I’d vote for your man
Obama this year. The Republican Party is an embarrasment right now. I
think Obama (not that this is any comfort to you) would moderate as a
president when the realities of office replace campaign rhetoric. At
the very least, he’s a fresh face and an inspirational figure, and
sometimes that quality is as important for a president as being
ideologically driven. Also, I like that he is the only front runner
right now that isn’t an enchrenced Washington insider.
There’s my two cents. See you at basketball.
what the Dems did to Lieberman. I was simply pointing out that both
parties have members that act outside the confines of what the party
finds acceptable and the party and/or its members sometimes react.
In McCain’s case, it is the talk show hosts and party members that are
against him being president. By in large, I think a lot of his peers in
the Senate (with a few exceptions), support his bid to become president.
I find McCain’s views to be more liberal than I can agree with
(especially on immigration), so I did not vote for him. It is my
opinion and my right to disagree with him.
Should I embrace him simply because of the “injustice” wrought by the McCain opposition?
Romney still has a slim chance if they will listen to the endorsement of Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family.
I have his statment on my post at: http://www.graceforgrace.com
Just a random thought… What if Romney loses (likely) and ends up running as an independent (probably unlikely)?
The malicious liberal, and the disenfranchised Mormon, in me would LOVE to see that happen.
And while I’m dreaming, I’d like a pony…
Where is California Condor these days?
Brian,
I do not think that anyone should vote for McCain, nor do I really
care. I never said that you or anyone should embrace him. I do not have
a problem with disagreeing. How you handle those disagreements is more
interesting to me.
Sheldon,
Shouldn’t you be working? I tend to agree with you. I am not a moderate
in policy or philoshy, though I appreciate moderation in style. That
must be why I like you.
running as an independent. As much as a dislike McCain’s stand on many
issues, I would not support an independent bid by Romney.
If it comes down to a McCain v. Obama race, my vote goes to Obama. 🙂
Sure, I disagree with Obama on several issues, but I would enjoy
hearing him speak. He is a heck of a public speaker!
I’m a semi-Romney supporter, but what I’m learning is that some Romney
supporters are sore losers. So what? Your first choice lost? Join the
club along with the Giuliani/Thompson/Edwards/Hunter supporters. That’s
life.
And he lost fair and square. What happened in West Virginia was
perfectly fair. The McCain people want McCain to win nationally and
recognized that Romney was his greatest threat, so they did what they
could to avoid a Romney win. Romney supporters would have done the same
if the tables were reversed. If you don’t like it, move to West
Virginia and try to change the system.
And as for Huckabee ruining things and splitting the anti-McCain vote,
you could probably make the same argument that Romney should have
dropped out and let Huckabee have the vote. Last night I looked at the
vote counts and my rough count was 2-3 states that Romney would have
won over McCain had the Huckabee voters voted for Romney, and 2-3
states that Huckabee would have won had Romney voters voted for
Huckabee. So who’s the blame for McCain winning? Romnney or Huckabee?
The ideal situation would have been for Huckabee/Romney supporters to
get together and consolidate their votes in individual states, thus
making it a 3-way race at this point. That wasn’t likely to happen
though, but that’s not all Huckabee’s fault.
And maybe I’m just not a conservative as I thought, but I don’t see
McCain being horrible. Not ideal, yes, but there could be a lot worse.
And considering the fact that we have a President that has been
horrible for the republican party, I’d say having a legimate shot at
the presidency again is not something to be crying about, even if that
person doesn’t lean as far right as some would like.
But I too hope Romney runs again in ’12, assuming Clinton or Obama is elected or I’m wrong and McCain really is horrible.
Oh, and one more thing.
Romney said conservatives would rally to him…
AND THEY HAVEN’T!
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I really thought that was a terrible slogan
from the beginning. I think even the rally goers must be getting really
tired of chanting that. It’s a negative tone, and a conjunction just
doesn’t work for a chant. Whoever thought of that should have been
fired a long time ago.
We are quickly approaching what I would term a “nightmare scenario” —
a November face-off between McCain/Huckabee and Clinton/Edwards.
YUCK.
To paraphrase Rumsfeld:
You go to an election with the candidates you have, not the ones you wished you have.
Of course, I was supporting Giuliani, so what do I know?
If it weren’t for the fact that Hillary Clinton is running, I could
have at least taken comfort in the idea that bitterness and acrimonious
personal assaults in blog comment threads would take a vacation after
November. Is anyone else already looking forward to November 2009, when
we can all vote on school levies and uncontested races for county
auditor?
was thinking Clinton/Obama if they can heal their rift. I think
Clinton/Obama would be unstoppable.
proportionately–then we’d see a much closer race between McCain and
Romney. I think that as much–if not more–than anything else has been
Romney’s stumbling block. Must be frustrating as H.E. double hockey
sticks.
Romney isn’t losing because people don’t like him. He’s losing because
the dynamics of the “game” are working against him. Frustrating!
Chris H: (#21)
“Man! You Romney people are very sensitive and no longer any fun. No more M* for me. Peace.”
I thought you were leaving.
You young guys just haven’t been paying attention long enough. McCain
has been betraying republicans, the republican party, conservatives,
and conservatism for about 20 years or so.
When McCain says “Reach out across the aisle” he really means “Give the democrats what they want.”
If voters had wanted what the democrats want, they would have elected all democrats.
It looks to me like Obama is going to be elected president. And I
predict he’ll be just as inept, if not more, than Carter was. And then
America will come to its senses, like in 1980, and vote in a
republican.
Some of us are old enough to know that once McCain is the nominee, the
Democrats will have a field day with his past, including being one of
the censured “Keating 5” congressmen during the Arizona S&L scandal
of the ’80s.
Great. So the successes of our foreign policy in Iraq will now
become equivalent successes in domestic and foreign policy for the next 8 years.
I’ll reprise two comments I made on MM.
1. Regarding the comment I have yet to meet a Mormon Democrat who supports Clinton over Obama.
I have activist Dem relatives in Utah. From what they tell me, the LDS
dems largely went for Hillary, the non-LDS dems went for Obama.
Remember, in a DEMOCRATIC primary in Utah, there’s not a huge religious
majority.
2. Regarding the Southern governor comment … what if Romney had been
the governor of Alabama and an Espicopalian? Would it have made any bit
of difference? I don’t think so.
Bookslinger, after eight years of one of the most highly qualified and
impressive-on-paper Executive branches we’ve had, I’m more than ready
to try someone with a bit less of a resume.
Experience didn’t stop Cheney and Rumsfeld from acting like utter
dingbats. I honestly would have preferred the Carter administration to
the Bush administration over the past eight.
Mormon?
For someone who said that Romney supporters are sore losers since they
aren’t rooting for the other (i.e.McCain) Republican candidate, you
haven’t been paying attention. It isn’t that we wouldn’t support other
candidates. There were some real good ones I thought, including the
underestimated Hunter. Even Thompson would have been someone I could
support if it wasn’t for his lazy attitude. Even Guliani wouldn’t have
been that bad of a choice I think in the end, even if his liberalism
gives pause.
No, the problem is McCain pure and simple. How that Democrat (I mean
Republican with a grain of salt) can be picked is simply shocking. It
is a slap in the face toward all Republicans. It is a slap in the face
to all that Ronald Reagan Republicans worked hard to build. Romney
supporters are not the only ones that are “sore losers” toward him.
Even those who are late Romney supporters don’t like him . . . at all.
His nomination is the sign that Republicanism is, to the great pleasure
of the Democrats, no longer in existance. He is a traitor that our own
put into the position he now sits.
The good news is that he is going to be trashed in the coming election.
Why? Because those who support him now I suspect will end up voting for
the Democrats in the general. Those who don’t support him won’t vote
for either side other than a very small group who vote no matter what.
The dislike among Republicans (and this makes it doubly confusing why
he got nominated. I hate Huckster, but I would at least understand why
he would get the vote) for him is almost equal to the dislike of
Hillary Clinton. As I heard someone else say, it is going to be a very
long and depressing four years.
become equivalent successes in domestic and foreign policy for the next
8 years.
Pretty much. But the only thing we can do is acknowledge that and then
go from there. Grumbling about how McCain isn’t a real conservative and
all that (despite his high ACU ratings and his low ACLU ratings)
doesn’t change the fact he will be more conservative than the
Democratic choices.
And for me, Supreme Court judges are the main issue. McCain may not
pick people like Alito, but unlike Clinton or Obama’s possible judicial
picks, his judge picks will likely at least be somewhat moderate.
from political posts.
Sorry for the lapse in judgement. Won’t happen again.
MITT DROPS
http://www.startribune.com/nation/15400506.html
Told ya. See Post #9
GeofB,
Romney just suspended his campaign
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.campaign/index.html
Ivan #51, I’m with you!
The repub race confirmed to me that there are three types of repubs.
1. religious Conservatives Huck
2. national security MCCain
3. Economic conservatives Romney
bbell,
there’s a fourth…
4. Freedom-loving Paul rebels
Everyone else leads to national insecurity, economic serfdom, and religious intolerance.
Tossman #40:
I agree with you, but I think that rift is inhealable. Hillary and Obama really, really hate each other.
Oh, and I agree with miguel #56. Republicans who are running on
platforms of big spending, big deficits, big regulation,
extra-Constitutional powers, anti-privacy, and an interventionist
foreign policy are the ones who are not “true Republicans.”
Neoconservatism, with its leftist, “do-gooder” roots, has radically
changed the Republican Party into a shadow of its former self.
One of my favorite blogs just summed up things come November:
“It looks likely that American voters will get to choose between a
vicious socia|ist war-monger and a half-crazy war-mongering socia|ist.
And some people say we don’t have choices in America!”
http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2008/02/07/run-ron-run/
re: 57
But do you really think hatred would stop Hillary from picking someone
as her running mate if she thought it in her best political interest? 🙂
I’m surprised that it doesn’t seem to bother people that McCain dumped his first wife to marry someone else.
More about McCain’s family life…
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html
I guess on the positive side he has admitted it was his fault, and I
have to admit, I don’t know what kind of state I would be in after
undergoing torture like he did. Even so, I admit this enters into my
reluctance to support him.
MikeInWeHo #59: Good point. I revise and amend my previous remarks.
willf #60: People have an amazing capacity to overlook flaws in
political candidates they support, while overemphasizing the flaws in
candidates they oppose.
Mike #62: Yeah, they even turned lookin’ good into “car salesman” and speaking well into “too slick”
and speaking well into “too slick” —–
Jettboy:
“How that Democrat (I mean Republican with a grain of salt) can be
picked is simply shocking. It is a slap in the face toward all
Republicans.”
But it IS a majority of Republicans who are voting for McCain in these
primaries. No one is forcing him on anyone; he’s the one the
grass-roots voters are pulling for. More Republicans polled so far like
McCain than liked Romney, Huckabee, or anyone else.
So the inevitable question: Which ones are the ones who are
out-of-touch with their own party, the McCain-lovers or the
McCain-haters? Has the Republican party left conservative voters in the
same way some say the Democrats left moderates behind? Is there a
third-party split in the offing?
votes and McCain about 4.7 million to date. Throw in Huckabee and
you’ve got a clear majority voting to the right of McCain (who has been
lucky enough to win more “winner take all” states than Romney and have
his buddy Huck dividing the anti-McCain votes).
your bottom dollar Mitt being Mormon affected his vote. I’d would wager
religious bigotry against LDS is probably the roughest in the south.
Throughout my life-before and after my mission (I’m 28), I’ve had
plenty of friends who were initially interested in the church. I’d hand
them a BoM, a few days later I’d get it returned-or they wouldn’t
accept it at all, saying they wouldn’t read a word of it b/c their
minister said it was of the devil.
Not but 2 years ago, after visiting my parents on a weekend, driving
home from church they turned on the AM radio for news. I’ve rarely
read/heard anything more anti-mormon coming out of the ministers mouth.
The southern ministers don’t even have to rail against Mitt, they’ve
taught their congregations that over years, so they don’t even have to
mention it.
I have a friend in Virginia, he can’t stand McCain-he recently told me
he might write in a random name. I asked him about Mitt, he claimed “he
doesn’t have enough experience”. Okay . . . considering I’ve spent long
hours talking with him about religion-he’s a born again-and doesn’t
think I’m Christian. He won’t say it to my face, b/c he doesn’t want to
be seen as a religious bigot, but believe me, the subtle things he has
done over the years, he won’t vote Mitt b/c he’s Mormon.
Let’s see Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkanasas-all went to Huckabee
and Huckabee would have won SC if Thompson hadn’t been in it.
You think the South wants McCain? Not really, but they’ll take McCain over a Mormon.
Mitt dropped out b/c he realized he has no chance to win in the South,
now if Mitt were a born-again or a baptist, or shoot just a plain
protestant, he would have destroyed McCain in the South.
Honestly, though I’m actually really pleasantly surprised how well Mitt
did in the South, slowly but surely religious bigotry is working its
way out.
ps. The above is NOT a slam on any religion, I wish no ill-will on
those who say things against LDS. I really do love the people in the
south, they are very religious, deeply moral, god-fearing, wonderful
people, I just wish they’d recognize the same for LDS.
pps. I’m actually not a Romney supporter, but out of all the rest of
the candidates besides mine I had hoped he’d win the nominee. I’d might
have just voted for him in the General.
Not anymore, if Ron Paul doesn’t win the nominee, I’ll still be writing in his name, Ron Paul, thank you very much!
Jack,
Surely any of us who made it through the Election of 2000 understand
that the nationwide popular vote is mostly irrelevant when
electors/delegates are what count. Call McCain’s lead a plurality of
Republicans if you’d like, but the gist of my question still stands.
So where’s Geoff?
I heard a gunshot and a thud earlier. I hope he’s okay.
A slap in the face toward all Republicans? How is it then that he is
winning the nomination? Obviously many Republicans don’t consider it a
slap in the face. It may be a slap in the face to people who think like
you do, which clearly is not representative of all republicans.
I called some Romney supports sore losers (ok, I’m sorry for calling
names) because they keep blaming Romney’s loss on something other than
Romney. It’s West Virginia’s fault (what happened was perfectly legit),
or it’s Huckabee’s fault (The conservative vote split was just as much
Romney’s fault as it was Huckabee’s), or it’s those states that are
winner-take-all (that’s how it works, deal with it). I think we (and
yes, I’m somewhat of a supporter also) need to accept the fact that
Romney wasn’t the top choice of most Republicans, and that’s all there
is too it. He’ll have a better shot in the future now that he is known,
and because the perceived flip-flops will be further in the past
(assuming he doesn’t make any more). The big question now is what does
he do to keep himself somewhat publicly visible so he can jump right
back into it in the future.
As far as McCain goes, I don’t think he is as bad as Hillary or Obama,
and he has to pick a conservative VP, and my gut says it won’t be
Huckabee. That’s just way too old-white-man to win against Clinton or
Obama. We’ll see. It’s likely to be irrelevant anyway, in my opinion.
forward to getting my hair back.
was only hanging around to save America from a Mormon president? I have
no problem with him staying in up to this point, and I thought the
calls for him to pull out to give Romney a chance against McCain were
obnoxious. His showing Tuesday and before that wasn’t as good as
Romney’s, but it was good enough that he had as much claim to stay in
the race as Romney did.
Now, though, it is plain that he can’t win, just as it was for Romney.
There is no point in going on, but if he announces today that his
campaign is over, then it will appear that he was only hanging on in
order to damage Romney. He has to wait at least another week.
Great review of McCain’s speech at CPAC:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124869.html
Not to spoil the ending, but it’s the best part:
McCain’s best/most awkward moment was when he congratulated Romney,
a man he deeply dislikes, on running an “energetic and dedicated
campaign”–a compliment on par with Spinal Tap being celebrated as
“Britain’s loudest band.”
Chad Too,
Re: #69–According to that logic then most American citizens were for Bush even though Gore got the majority of popular votes.
Mike L.,
Just for the record, when I point out that Romney lost because of a
disproportionate spread of delegates or a division between he and
Huckabee, I’m only saying that he didn’t lose because he wasn’t liked.
He lost–for the most part–because he wasn’t positioned well
logistically.
Jack,
You’re dodging the question over semantics. More Republicans have
chosen McCain as their man than any other single candidate. He holds
far more delegates than any other. Will you address the question or
not?
Chad Too,
I’m not trying to dodge. I’m saying that I don’t buy the idea that a *majority* of Republicans have chosen–to date–McCain over any other candidate, basing that argument in the delegate count. The numbers simply don’t add up. That’s why I didn’t think your allusion to the Bush/Gore race as an analog was applicable. Plus, I don’t think the workings of the Electoral College make for a good analogy regarding the distribution of delegates in the Republican Primaries.
You’re right that McCain has swept the delegates. But, IMO, that has as much to do with the “luck of the draw” as with anything else.
I’m not trying to dodge. I’m saying that I don’t buy the idea that a
*majority* of Republicans have chosen–to date–McCain over any other
candidate, basing that argument in the delegate count. The numbers
simply don’t add up. That’s why I didn’t think your allusion to the
Bush/Gore race as an analog was applicable. Plus, I don’t think the
workings of the Electoral College make for a good analogy regarding the
distribution of delegates in the Republican Primaries.
You’re right that McCain has swept the delegates. But, IMO, that has as
much to do with the “luck of the draw” as with anything else.
—–
“plurality” for majority in the original question. It’s a fair nitpick
and I’ve conceded that.
I will be voting for Mitt Romney in November, even though it looks like I’ll have to vote using the write-in option.
http://mittromneyroadtothewhitehouse.blogspot.com/
If Mitt’s faith and how it affected the race is of interest to you, I recommend you view the movie trailer on the following site-
http://www.article6themovie.com/
Article 6 is a fascinating film about how faith affects politics, and on how people truly see LDS.
If Mitt’s faith and how it affected the race is of interest to you, I
recommend you view the movie trailer on the following site-
http://www.article6themovie.com/
Article 6 is a fascinating film about how faith affects politics, and
on how people truly see LDS. —–
(politically). Thy are leftover southern Democrats which is sort of
like saying a born and bred bigot with a hand out. (Sometimes this is
called a populist). These Huckabites have been left behind and they are
about to face the tribulation.