Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fix Picks: Romney's JFK Moment?

When considering former Gov. Mitt Romney's (R-Mass.) chances at winning both the Republican nomination and the general election, we must view his Mormon faith as a factor. Reasonable people can disagree about how large a factor it will be but almost no one believes it will have no impact.

Time and time again unaffiliated Republican strategists have told The FIx that if Romney wasn't a Mormon he would be the frontrunner for the GOP nod. As it is, he is one of three candidates in the so-called "top tier" -- former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) are the others -- but still faces real questions about his faith and how it fits into his governing philosophy.

Now comes an Associated Press story out of Iowa late last week in which Romney acknowledges he is likely to give a major speech addressing his Mormon faith sometime before next year.

"It's probably too early for something like that," Romney told the AP. "At some point it's more likely than not, but we'll see how things develop."

Such a speech would follow in the footsteps of John F. Kennedy who chose to address questions about his Catholicism and his belief in the separation of church and state in a speech during the 1960 presidential campaign.

If the expected speech stays true to Romney's past rhetoric on his Mormon faith, it's likely to focus heavily on the fact that he -- like most GOP primary voters -- is a person of faith who believes in Jesus Christ. Romney has not and will not answer specific questions about the tenets of his faith either in this expected speech or afterwards, his campaign has made clear. Such requests are typically referred to the Mormon church.

The question before Romney is whether a single speech on Mormonism is enough. Will it quiet skeptics in the evangelical community? Will it stymie whisper campaigns about his faith -- some of which have already begun? Will it put to rest the media scrutiny he has already faced on the matter?

The answers aren't knowable just yet. What seems clear is that Romney recognizes that putting to rest doubts about his Mormonism is a hurdle he must clear to win the nomination. What remains to be seen is just how high that hurdle is and how well Romney can leap.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 30, 2007; 3:16 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Picks  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Looks and Politics
Next: Approaching Ames

Comments

JimDinFL

I agree with you that the evangelicals have a litmus test, but I disagree that Thompson should be passing it as easily as he does.

Romney has been married to the same woman for 30+ years. He doesn't drink. He doesn't smoke. He doesn't womanize. His family is picture perfect. The guy basically reeks of family values, goodness, wholesomeness, etc. He flipped his position on abortion, and he is a mormon.

Thompson is divorced, married to someone 25 years his junior, lives the hollywood lifestyle, etc. He flipped his position on abortion, and he is not a mormon. Maybe a term of voting pro-life in the Senate is enough for the evangelicals. I just think that if Thompson were mormon and his lobbying activities surfaced, the evangelicals would be be looking for a different horse, or at least demanding an explanation. Instead, silence.

Posted by: Dave S | August 1, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Dave

I do not like either Thompson or Romney. I have a lot of family in Massachusetts and they say Romney was a terrible governor. Thompson was an indifferent senator and does not seem to have the drive to be a good president.

The difference in treatment is that Thompson has a voting record that is consistent with the right wing of the GOP. Romney has dozens of video clips espousing postions that are anathema to the religious right. Those videos will be played over and over in attack ads. Thompson will be attacked over his lobbying but he can point to a consistent voting record in the Senate. Romney became a social conservative at about the same time he started running for president. The coincidence is too cute. Look at all the ads attacking Kerry as a flip-flopper based on 30 years of votes and statements. Can you honestly say that any politician would not be attacked for changing basic positions on the eve of presidential bid? Especially positions of critical importance to a key element of the party's base.

Incidentally, I do believe that his religion makes it a harder sell to the evangelicals. It is just that no one would have gotten a pass for an eve of the campaign conversion. The true blue ideologues in the Republican party are obsessed with litmus tests and a long history of passing litmus tests. (The left wing of the Democratic party is similar in this regard.)

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 31, 2007 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Dave

I do not like either Thompson or Romney. I have a lot of family in Massachusetts and they say Romney was a terrible governor. Thompson was an indifferent senator and does not seem to have the drive to be a good president.

The difference in treatment is that Thompson has a voting record that is consistent with the right wing of the GOP. Romney has dozens of video clips espousing postions that are anathema to the religious right. Those videos will be played over and over in attack ads. Thompson will be attacked over his lobbying but he can point to a consistent voting record in the Senate. Romney became a social conservative at about the same time he started running for president. The coincidence is too cute. Look at all the ads attacking Kerry as a flip-flopper based on 30 years of votes and statements. Can you honestly say that any politician would not be attacked for changing basic positions on the eve of presidential bid? Especially positions of critical importance to a key element of the party's base.

Incidentally, I do believe that his religion makes it a harder sell to the evangelicals. It is just that no one would have gotten a pass for an eve of the campaign conversion. The true blue ideologues in the Republican party are obsessed with litmus tests and a long history of passing litmus tests. (The left wing of the Democratic party is similar in this regard.)

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 31, 2007 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Find a president less qualified. I couldn't.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/

Admittedly, I have a bias toward candidates with executive experience (political or otherwise), so one less than illustrious Senate term counts little in my book. Knowing several people who work as legal counsel up on the Hill, you're going to have to explain how exactly that counts as preparation for the White House.
Also, you are sugar-coating the facts by saying that it was Thompson's firm that did the lobbying. Thompson himself personally accepted the assignment, personally contacted executive agencies, and personally accepted money on behalf of a pro abortion group. We can squabble over what is worse, Mitt taking pro-choice views to get elected in an already liberal state or Thompson trying to influence federal policy for filthy lucre. Either way, Thompson is not squeaky clean, and evangelicals basically give him a pass because the other viable candidate Romney is a Mormon. If Thompson was a Mormon, I'm willing to bet the evangelicals wouldn't have closed their eyes to his impurity in the pro-life arena. To be able to sleep at night, evanglicals have to attack Romney as being a flip-flopper and praise Thompson as the reincarnation of Reagan, otherwise they have to confront the real reason they don't like Romney--religious bigotry.

Posted by: Dave S | July 31, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Romney never said anthing about, Jack. He certianly is no Jack . He doesn't like my type of woman like Jack and Bobbie and Joe and well I don't want to brag> Besides mormons are so wicked they believe in Marriage. Especially that awful thing where you are supposed to be committed to a woman for ETERNITY. Can you imagine promising not just for this life but FOREVER. HOw EVil Mormons are, they say Sodomy and HOmosexuality is BAD .. Everyone knows that basketball , football,Entertainment people and many more including Politicians have a no guilt life.. Why even the Clintons have proven that SEX is Good . Morals are an archaic dead beast that no one has to worry about anymore. Why even Evangelical Christians like Pentecostals would rather not vote and let Hillary win !! Don't let that MORONMORMON in@$@#. So He has a Family, big deal!! I have Drugs, Booze and Lots of Lovers including Mafia King Pins and President of the UNited States. I can't wait to meet Hillary and Bill they are so into it. Love from Hell Marilyn

Posted by: Marilyn Monroe | July 31, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Although we are talking about faith, the big token of love Jeb Bush's Florida Republicans see is Romney is an oil and gas man. He approved the same companies Md Ehrlich approved for foreign LNG gas coming to the coast in Tanker terminals. It is the same companies Jeb has been promoting in Florida.

All these three REPUBLICAN Governors pushed this Distrigas and AES corp gas production through their states, and the new Governors are trying to kill the LNG Trinidad Distrigas SUEZ gas approval.

Dont feel sorry for Romney. He is a billion dollar multi conglomerate corporate buddy. Since Mel Sembler got booted out of italy from the dead shot Italian offical in Iraq, the son doing the Sembler fundraising crown with Jeb's political machine is the next chapter in the book.

The oil and gas favors for big companies will cost Romney more than his Mormon faith.

Posted by: theloneconsumer | July 31, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Dave S - I think that you're ignoring Thompson's time serving as a counsel in the Senate and then later as a Senator. He may not have great qualifications, but would hardly be the least qualified ever elected.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Thompson's law firm represented a pro-choice group. His votes were pro-life down the line. He never publicly espoused pro-choice, pro-gay rights positions. There was no conversion. He can be accused of hypocrisy and will probably see attack ads take this issue on.

There is video of Romney taking liberal positions on abortion and gay rights. That is a big difference. Those videos will be played over and over again in attack ads. There is no video of Thompson taking liberal positions (unless it is from one of his movies).

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 31, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The evangelical crowd would hold Romney to a different standard in terms of flip-floppery if he were not a Mormon. Note that they did not bat an eyelid when Thompson was outed for lobbying for a pro-choice group. His conversion (even though he never discussed it) was accepted as sincere, while Romney was considered a flip-flopper. I don't see how the "gotcha" culture explains the different treatment that these two candidates received. Both views changed, only one was believed. Maybe evangelicals find Fred more trustworthy because he is a hollywood actor that would be the least qualified president elected in US history. Most likely the two are held to a different standard because Romney happens to attend a church that evangelicals dislike.

Posted by: Dave S | July 31, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

DCJO writes "If Romney happened to be Baptist or Catholic, his change in position on abortion would be seen as a Paul on the road to Damascus conversion."

You've got to be kidding. In today's 'gotcha' political culture, ANY candidate with Youtube moments out there saying things like he would be a stronger supporter of gay rights than Ted Kennedy and proclaiming himself pro-choice and who then becomes a pro-life, social conservative just in time for the presidential race would be under heavy attack for flip-flopping. Highlighting contradictory positions on various issues has been a staple of political attack ads for decades.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

You're right, Loudoun Voter. I should have more respect for my fellow citizens. Should they ever decide to remove the wool covering their faces and the scales from their eyes I'll extend a sincere apology.

Posted by: Lalaland, USA | July 31, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"had he not been martyrd he would be a forgotten president"

Posted by: Lalaland, USA | July 31, 2007 11:59 AM

That's an insult to people in Lalaland.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 31, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"had he not been martyrd he would be a forgotten president"

Posted by: Lalaland, USA | July 31, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

If Romney happened to be Baptist or Catholic, his change in position on abortion would be seen as a Paul on the road to Damascus conversion. Evangelical support for the less qualified Thompson (who actually lobbied for abortion rights) is no more than thinly veiled anti-mormonism. I'm not sure I understand why evangelicals dislike mormonism. All religion is faith-based (empirically absurd for the non-believers out there), so crying that one person's religion is more absurd than yours seems a little silly, particulary considering that most mormons that I've met are really decent folk.

Posted by: DCJO | July 31, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I find this hilarious!

You guys are worried about a Mormon?

Clinton/Obama team would be the least likely pair to win - a woman and an AA.

BTW I hate to see all the JFK comments - had he not been martyrd he would be a forgotten president or at least remembered for hitting Monroe.

Posted by: pat | July 31, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

"As a life-long Red Sox fan, I have a hard time contemplating an election with three presidential candidates from New York"

JimD - Just find the one that Steinbrenner backs, and write them off.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | July 31, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

A good governor? Clearly you know nothing about his tenure in Massachusetts. He was the worst. And now he takes every opportunity to dump on the people who elected him. Scumbag.

Posted by: Walter | July 31, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Mormon or not, he's proven to be a good Father, Businessman and GOV. Plus he's by far the most intelligent out of all the candidates.

Posted by: Aeijae | July 31, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

The four-way race is sounding good. Lets really test the electoral college. I don't see how anyone other than a Dem/Repub gets elected, frankly. Can the small-party / independant candidates even win one state's electoral votes? I suppose if a Bloomberg could get New York, he'd have a lot of impact on what happens at the EC. Though I'm guessing that most states don't have clear rules about who to send to the EC or how they'll vote, if a non-major party candidate wins the state.

Posted by: bsimon | July 31, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Golgi: and maybe a Mormon president would outlaw coffee, alcohol and tobacco. It's more likely than fixing the infrastructure.

Bloomberg would certainly complicate things for both the D's and the R's. He would draw away a lot of votes from moderate D's. Not sure how he'd score with conservative R's but he is a successful businessman and they worship that for some weird (see Bush, George W) reason.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 31, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Golgi

Bloomberg has given conflicting signals on that subject. As a life-long Red Sox fan, I have a hard time contemplating an election with three presidential candidates from New York

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 31, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I would like to point out that I have no problem with Mormons myself. I have known and worked with many of them in my 35 years in the work force. I used to make regular trips to Utah when I was in consulting and had many Mormon clients. I certainly would have no qualms about voting for Mormon if I agreed with him/her on the issues. However, I do know a lot of evangelicals who regard Mormonism as a cult. The polls bear that out. The MSM is definitely not creating an issue - that prejudice is out there.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 31, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"for those of you speculating on a Giuliani-Clinton race, I am convinced that there will be a Christian right third party candidate if Giuliani gets the nomination"

And hasn't Bloomberg said he will run if Clinton gets the nomination? Perhaps we can all look forward to a FOUR-party race????? Crazy!

Posted by: Golgi | July 31, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Maybe a Mormon president would pay attention to this country's badly needed infrastructure repairs. A guideline for founding a Mormon town is giving it wide streets and a sensible layout. I think, although I am not a historian, that this guideline was laid out by Brigham Young. It's very, very practical and sensible.

Disclaimer - I'm an Obama supporter and actually hope Romney is not the president, but would like to give Mormonism its due.

Posted by: Golgi | July 31, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

There are some Americans who could never bring themselves to vote for a Mormon. It would appear from polling data that I have seen that evangelical Christians comprise the largest segment of that group. Anecdotally, I have heard interviews on NPR from people at an evangelical gathering questioned on their attitudes towards Mormons. One even said she did not consider "Mormons and Catholics to be Christians" and that she could not vote for a non-Christian. Living in Northeast Florida, I know a lot of conservative Christians and a substantial number consider the Mormons to be a cult on a par with Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses, maybe a slight step up from Hare Krishnas. Bob Jones University had blurbs on its web site as recently as 2003 or so calling Mormons and Catholics cultists. So that prejudice is out there and Romney must take it into consideration.

Romney's task is complicated in that he has chosen to appeal directly to the group most likely to be prejudiced against Mormons. He obviously figured he would be running against McCain and Giuliani, who both have their problems with the right wing of the Republican party. His late in life conversion to social conservatism coming just as he decided to run for the presidential nomination to the right of his main rivals is suspicious when viewed in that light.

I think it is the combination of Mormonism with late life conversion that will make it very difficult for Romney to appeal to the evangelicals. Thompson's entrance wills seriously complicate matters for him since it gives the true believers another alternative to McCain and Giuliani. I believe Giuliani is the main beneficiary of Thompson's entrance. Thompson may peel of some "star struck" supporters who are attracted to Giuliani for his celebrity but he will do far more damage to Romney's attempt to be the "true conservative" in the race.

Incidentally, for those of you speculating on a Giuliani-Clinton race, I am convinced that there will be a Christian right third party candidate if Giuliani gets the nomination. A number of prominent religious right figures, including James Dobson, have indicated they could not support Rudy for president. The entry of a third party religious right candidate would almost certainly throw the election to the Democrats.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 31, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD -- Legislators joked and chatted, showing no sense of urgency about breaking a deadlock between Sunni and Shiite Muslims over national reconciliation as Iraq's parliament held its final session Monday before a monthlong recess.

Adjourning until Sept. 4, despite complaints from American critics, the parliament failed to pass laws concerning oil investment and revenue-sharing among regions, the re-integration of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime into government, and provincial elections.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday's raid by FBI and IRS agents means the corruption investigation into the longest-serving Republican senator in history "has taken on new urgency," notes the NYT. The investigation is particularly significant because Stevens has long held much power in the Senate, where he was the chairman of the appropriations committee for six years. Bill Allen, the CEO of Veco, is said to have overseen renovation work on Stevens' home in 2000, and since that year the company received more than $30 million in federal contracts.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Dave! writes
"I have no doubt many of my beliefs don't equate to the positions taken by strategists. If the MSM makes something an issue, it's an issue regardless of the merit. It appears that the media thinks that Romney's religion is an issue and, therefore, his strategists need to address this issue. Whether that means that there is really anything to it or not with people that actually vote remains to be seen. Why the MSM thinks this is an issue is beyond me."

The MSM thinks this is an issue because the Republican party has built its successes of the last 27 years on adding the evangelical vote to their base. Evangelicals - generally speaking - have some level of contempt for Mormonism, many people equate it more with a cult than a religion. Many Christians find Mormonism to be unlike their own Christianity. This is not something the MSM has made up, it is a fact. Republican strategists are aware of this fact, and given the importance of the evangelical vote to their recent successes, they are understandably worried about what it means to have Mormon running for President. If a significant percentage of your base thinks one of your main candidates is a member of a cult, it is cause for concern. Blaming the media for this phenomena is illogical.

Posted by: bsimon | July 31, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

'Foreclosure filings skyrocket
Filings jump 58% in first half of the year and could surpass 2 million this year as the housing market weakens, according to a report.'

As usual, lack of regulation=reckless lending practices-the working class suffers. but some ceo's made big bucks!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Golgi: no, caffeine makes you smarter! And no study has ever demonstrated long term negative effects. Although they do blather on about elevated levels of cortisol aka "the death hormone." My own personal experience is to avoid the stuff after lunch so it doesn't interfere with sleep patterns. Along with the usual laxative effects.

Any studies of relative Mormon intelligence out there?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 31, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Mormons are admirable for abstaining from caffeine. Man, I wish I had never started coffee. Imagine a life free of the need for coffee. What freedom. It's also healthier to avoid coffee.
(sipping as I type)

Posted by: Golgi | July 31, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Skeptic in CA,
First off, sorry that I misread you wrt/corporate boardrooms. Yes legislators are politicians. The point I was attempting to make is that there are many backgrounds that can provide someone with experience to be president. In fact, i don't think that it is difficult to prepare to be president. Getting successfully through life requires some degree of compromise and political maneuvering. This can be gained from executive experience or a term in the senate (or a myriad of other ways). I think that there are instances where someone could be an effective president without having been a politician (whether they would be electable without a legislative position on their resume is a different story). Add to that that the definition of politician is somewhat murkey (is a general considered a politician?).

That said, i still don't think that necessarily translates into an effective president. Our current president, while Governor of Texas, was apparently able to work well with with legislatures of both parties, effectively using his skills (that he learned and practiced running his business) of compromise and political maneuvering. His effectivness as president is questionable at best. I still think that it is more about the personal characteristics than what their resume says that determines how well you do as president.

Posted by: Dave! | July 31, 2007 8:02 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- FBI and Internal Revenue Service agents searched the Alaska home of veteran Sen. Ted Stevens Monday amid a corruption probe that has already snared two oil-company executives and a state lobbyist.

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican, had his home searched by the FBI and IRS Monday.

Dave Heller, an FBI spokesman in Anchorage, Alaska, confirmed that agents entered Stevens' home Monday afternoon, but he referred further comment to the Justice Department.

Neither the senator nor any family members were home at the time, Heller said.

Stevens, 83, and the most senior of Republicans in the Senate, has been under federal investigation for a 2000 renovation project more than doubling the size of his home in Girdwood, Alaska, near Anchorage, The Associated Press reported.

The project was overseen by Bill Allen, a contractor who has pleaded guilty to bribing Alaska state legislators.

Allen is founder of VECO Corp., an Alaska-based oil field services and engineering company that has reaped tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts.

Posted by: what a surprise | July 31, 2007 1:13 AM | Report abuse

'(And by the way, I may not have heard you correctly from out here in the Kolob 'hood, but I think you suggested we "concentrate on the candidate's qualifications." The problem is that our boy Mitty doesn't have that many! He does look good in the underwear, with those $300 make-up jobs, though.

Now go help your sister-wives with the chores!

Love, God)'

-$400 dollar makeup jobs, God, get it right --I know you're busy -- but you know, figures are important.

And so are dogs on the roof of a car for 12 hours, so long they get sick and nearly die... and Judi guiliani and the live dogs she used to staple together their organs to demonstrate medical equipment and then kill them...what is it with republicans and their inability to feel the pain of fellow creatures---their utter lack of any human feelings? Or ANY feelings?

I'm just asking...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2007 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Rufus, re: my thoughts about the Pat Tillman story: I am familiar with the stories, but I, unfortunately, don't yet feel as though there is enough information for me to make a judgment. The truth is I believe in NOT making judgments based on the first news stories -- esp. those from the AP or TV. Investigative reporting takes time, and in a 24-hour news environment, today's reporters lack the time to delve before reporting. I thus aim to reserve judgment.

I grew up a military brat and am painfully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the culture and the people, so I think it's prudent to reserve judgment until more is known.

Posted by: Skeptic in CA | July 31, 2007 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Dave, I do NOT think that "compromise and especially political maneuvering is absent from corporate boardrooms (or working your way up into boardrooms)." I said that "compromise and political maneuvering is better experience than that in a corporate boardroom."

I have been a CEO as well as a VP for three different companies, and I can assure you that corporations ARE NOT democracies. As JKRish noted above, "Follow my orders or get fired"=corporation." Granted, I wasn't one of those types of executives, but I could have been.

While I can understand how you can think that it may be difficult to prepare to be president of the U.S., I wholeheartedly dispute the idea that someone can walk off the street and become president of the US. The "soldiers, actors, governors, state and federal legislators" of whom you speak were all first politicians with direct experience in compromise and political maneuvering. C'mon, a legislator, by definition IS a politician!

Posted by: Skeptic in CA | July 31, 2007 12:03 AM | Report abuse

FYI--Not to be insensitive here but trying to argue your Big Sky Daddy is more believable than someone else's is rather pointless.

Posted by: roo | July 30, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin,
"His religion is not an issue. The dog-on-the-roof IS." I had to actually read the story twice to believe it. But then i got to thinking - what exactly is the problem with what he did? The part other than it being an odd solution. To me it did not appear to be unsafe or at least an less safe than the dog in the car with its head out the window. But then i have never had pets. So i asked my wife who has. After stating that she would never consider putting one of her dogs on the roof of any car, she said while odd, it was probably no different than putting the dog in the back of a pickup. Then we started talking about Clark, Rusty, their dog and the rest of the Griswolds... But I'm not sure this story has, um, legs - its just fodder during the dog days of summer...

Posted by: Dave! | July 30, 2007 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I just read Mark Twain's "Joan of Arc". Yes, I had thought that I read all of Twain 30 years ago. But he thought his best work was "Joan", and I had never heard of it. It made my plane flights to and from Albuquerque.

Twain argues forcefully that Joan was the most exceptional human in recorded history.
And she heard "Voices".

My point? Romney should be judged on his accomplishments and failures at creating consensus, his views, his sense of humor about himself, how he reacts under pressure and how he treats those around him.

His religion is not an issue. The dog-on-the-roof IS.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 30, 2007 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Some of which, getting rid of the fairness doctrine, amnesty for illegals, war against the middle east, policies toward terrosism, we are having to deal with now.

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 10:14 PM | Report abuse

"I have lived in Massachusetts for 33 years.
I knew Mitt Romney. (not personally, thankfully)
Mitt Romney was a governor of mine.
CC, sir, Mitt Romney was no Jack Kennedy."

Well said. What a horrible comparision. If I we're a Kenneddy I would sue any one and every one who takes that leap. Slander against President Kenneddy's legacy and good name. The GOP must really be over. First everybody Ronald Reagan. Now mitt romney is John Kennedy. Both those president's would role over in their graves if they heard that (although much of the trouble we have now in this country, not counting the small russia problem, right now is due to some of regan's policies)

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 30, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

(And by the way, I may not have heard you correctly from out here in the Kolob 'hood, but I think you suggested we "concentrate on the candidate's qualifications." The problem is that our boy Mitty doesn't have that many! He does look good in the underwear, with those $300 make-up jobs, though.

Now go help your sister-wives with the chores!

Love, God)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Savea,

What's that? I can't hear you all the way out here. It's hard to stay in touch when you live near a star named Kolob.

Love, God

Posted by: God | July 30, 2007 9:43 PM | Report abuse

People that continue to bring up the Mormon "magic underwear" are either Mormon haters, ignorant, or plain uneducated. Not every Mormon is allowed to enter the Temples unless they are faithful and keep the commandments. I know of many Mormons who don't qualify. Polygamy was banned long time ago and yet some people continue to bring this up. Why don't you say something about polygamy in the Bible? Some moved here from Europe for the freedom of worship, then hate the Mormons because of polygamy while they own slaves. Why the current Pope did said these protestant churches don't have the whole truth? The Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ are the only churches to claim their priesthood and authority from Apostle Peter (for the Catholics) and Apostles Peter, James, and John for the Mormon Church. Why don't we just concentrate on the candidate's qualifications? Of course it will never happen because the world is filled with the bad, the good, the ugly and the evil.

Mitt Romney is not the perfect candidate for the higher office, but he's most qualified of the lot. If not then since we now have a black, a woman, and a Mormon, why not vote for Gladys Knight? She's got it all!

Go Mitt!!!

Posted by: Savea | July 30, 2007 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Dave!

more recently, we had the guy who traded Sammy Sosa. That hasn't worked out so well.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Skeptic in CA,
"We live in a democracy where experience in compromise and political maneuvering is better experience than that in a corporate boardroom." If you think that compromise and especially political maneuvering is absent from corporate boardrooms (or working your way up into boardrooms), you are misguided to say the least. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that there is no single thing that prepares you for president of the US. We've had ranchers, soldiers, actors, governors, state and federal legislators, farmers, home-schoolers, university professors, a tanner, lawyers, business and sports team owners, a surveyor and a newspaper publisher. Some have been successful and others not. Personally, I think a lot more has to do with the person themselves and not what they have or haven't done.

Posted by: Dave! | July 30, 2007 9:30 PM | Report abuse

"The word 'polygamy', of course, comes from the Greek 'poly' meaning multiple and 'gamy' meaning reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney." --Stephen Colbert

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Romney's Record Worst in the Country

It's interesting how little Mitt Romney seems to talk about his record as Governor of Massachusetts, which after all is his main claim to qualification to be President. There are a couple of reasons for this: Massachusetts isn't very popular with conservative primary voters, Mitt Romney wasn't very popular with the people he governed, he didn't stick around enough to do much, and, as we find out in the Globe today his record on economics is abysmal.

AS MITT ROMNEY pursues his bid for the presidency, his record as Massachusetts governor will come under scrutiny, including how the state's economy performed during his administration. Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country.

On all key labor market measures, the state not only lagged behind the country as a whole, but often ranked at or near the bottom of the state distribution. Formal payroll employment in the state in 2006 was still 16,000 or 0.5 percent below its average level in 2002, the year immediately prior to the start of the Romney administration. Massachusetts ranked third lowest on this key job generation measure and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy. Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.

Now why wouldn't he talk about that, do you think?

Posted by: he's no Jack Kennedy | July 30, 2007 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Holy Cow! Romney honestly insincere
By Tim Murphy
Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

Forget the widespread anti-Mormon prejudice, inexperience, and flip-flopping. Forget the Salt Lake City Olympics, health care plans, and an image so squeaky clean you can eat freedom toast off of it. Mitt Romney will not win the 2008 Presidential Election because he has made a career out of biting the hand that feeds him.

Last Tuesday, Romney formally announced his candidacy for president in his "home state" of Michigan. Why would the former governor of Massachusetts and Utah resident hold the rally in Michigan? Probably because if he tried to hold a rally in the state that he governed off and on for four years, he would struggle to get 500 people to show up.

For those keeping score at home, Michigan marks his third home state of the century. Like Nick Saban or the aliens in Independence Day, Romney has made a lifestyle out of moving from one place to another, milking the establishment for all it's worth before moving on. He is a political mercenary who believes only in his own personal advancement.

Posted by: from UChicago Maroon | July 30, 2007 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - did not serve.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney - did not serve in the military but did serve the Mormon Church on a 30-month mission to France.

Former Senator Fred Thompson - did not serve.

Posted by: AWOL | July 30, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

For all those urging a tolerant view of Mormonism, ask yourself how different you would feel if the religion in question were Scientology or the Jehovah's Witnesses.
No! you say. They're cults! Well...

"God resides near a star called Kolob."
Mormonism or Scientology?

"God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children."
Mormonism or Jehovah's Witness?

"God is a being of flesh and bone, constrained by logic and the laws of the universe."
Mormonism or Scientology?

All three are Mormon beliefs. This doesn't seem to describe "just another Christian religion."

Posted by: FYI | July 30, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I have lived in Massachusetts for 33 years.
I knew Mitt Romney. (not personally, thankfully)
Mitt Romney was a governor of mine.
CC, sir, Mitt Romney was no Jack Kennedy.

(Not even close! Check the polls - people from the state he governed DON'T LIKE ROMNEY. They love JFK, though. Find another analogy.)

Posted by: Bokonon | July 30, 2007 8:34 PM | Report abuse

'Proud -- You're right about Rudy being consistent.'

Consistent on exactlly WHAT? He changes every five minutes. Ask his MANY wives and mistresses. And CC, when will you do a story about Judi Guiliani spending $40,000 in one week on clothes and jewelry?

Oh, I'm sorry -- she's a republican, so that's not a problem for you.

Posted by: Sam | July 30, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Word is born skeptic. I knew there was something I liked about ya :). The enlightenedment of the Bay Area is going to flow over the word like a volcano. I'm from San Jose Myself (same as pat tillamn). Are you familar with the new news from last week that he was mudered then the cover-up went to the hightest levals? Our Boy from San Jo, george bush's poster boy. Murdered becasue he was a free thinking individual against the iraq war but going after the terrorists.

What is your take, being from the Bay Area also. I think the man was everything that is right about this great country. Everything that is wrong with this country killed him. Where do you stand? I'm on one over this, how about you?

""From the AP:

SAN FRANCISCO -
Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

In other words, Pat Tillman was most likely murdered in the field. In cold blood. By other US soldiers.

This must be what the Bush Administration was trying so desperately to hide behind their all purpose "Executive Privilege" shield. Read more...

I don't have the words. Rage would be an understatement. To think that our f*#king president is using executive privilege to cover this up defies all sense of human decency. I can only hope that the nightmare the Tillman family has been put through will come to an end someday. Heads need to roll at the highest levels of both the military and the government..."

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Comparing Flip-flopping Mitty to JFK on any level is a pathetic joke, CC. Please stop -- It's nauseating.

Posted by: drindl | July 30, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Only blue skies and 74 degree temps in the San Francisco Bay Area, Judge.

Oh - and of course I don't agree with the bishop who wouldn't give communion to John Kerry! Re-read the post...I simply said, in response to your comment about bishops continuing to give communion to those who have "sinned," that not judging others' worthiness to receive God is one of the teachings of Catholicism.

And Mike - I voted for Bush in 2000. I was a registered Republican until 2003. And I voted for Arnie in 2004. John Kerry is the first Democratic presidential candidate I've ever supported. So while it may have seemed partisan, it, in fact, was strictly about Bush and Cheney. There are many reasoned Republicans that I like, e.g., Chuck Hagel. I was sorry that some of tthe moderate ones were ousted in 2004 because of the backlash. I also think there are Democrats that I think are buffoons. I lean Democrat, yes, but I think votes should be cast based on individual candidates.

Posted by: Skeptic in CA | July 30, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

'Moreover, corporations are democracies. '

LOL -- funniest thing I've read all day. Obviouslly you've never worked in at one.

CEO's are feudal lords -- and when at the head of vastly wealthy multinationals -- far more powerful and abusive.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

'Kowardly Kos klone (or klown) - aren't you supposed to be in chicago at your conference of fellow moonbats?

you ought to bottle up all that negative energy and apply it to work some good, instead of your usual cynicism, envy and hate. you might actually win an election some day.'

hey king of zouk -- who are you today? or how many, i should say.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"Follow my orders or get fired"=corporation


Democracy=All voices are heard. Some acted on others not.

"Often "republics" and monarchies are described as mutually exclusive.[1] Defining a republic as a non-monarchy, a common short definition,[2] is based on this idea. Although largely covering what is usually understood by a republic such definition has borderline issues. For example, the distinction between monarchy and republic was not always made as it is in modern times; oligarchies are traditionally considered neither monarchy nor republic,[3]; and such definition depends very much on the monarch concept, which has various definitions, not making clear which of these is used for defining republic."

So the question becomes. ARe we a democracy or a republic? Or have we ventured into a dictatorship?

Posted by: JKRish | July 30, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm trying to tone it down. I learned something From O'REilly. He does not believe everything he says. He tries to sway people closer to him by being outlansih right. I at least tell people where I'm coming from and admit I'm a democratic socialist. He calims to be "fair and balanced" and have no agenda. He has been lying to the elderly for decades now. They think he really beleives what he's saying and is real news. He is a propoganda puppet. I'm just trying to counter the right-wing attack dogs. Not very balnced is it. The gop has the radio, cable tv, local news. What does the left have? Olberman and a few thousands anonymous posters. Doesn't seem quite fair does it. MAybe if ALL media was liberla people might think about the news in a differant light. Not the case, not even saying I want that to be the case. But for them to not even be happy with the total domination of all media they have and attack me and others like me daily. That is called stamping out dissent. That is called fascist. I gotta call it, like I see it. I am just trying to bring the fascsits a little closer to my side, that's all. Not compleatly. Just one or three "notches"


I'm trying to get the gop a little to the left. I don't expect everything I say to be. Just some. That's not to much to ask.

As opposed to the gop who will only take all and not compramise at all. Like little elementary school children. Mine mine mine mine. They don't reaalize the country is made of of differant "kinds" of people, some not like them. It's not for non-gop'er s to be MORE like gop'ers. The gop'ers MUST accept opinions other than theirs. If they can't do that this country is a fascist dictatorship. IMO

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 7:11 PM | Report abuse

No, Mike & Spartan, in a corporation, the CEOs and VPs make all the decisions, and the mid-level managers support those decisions. There's no need to get approval for their policies or programs from the shareholders except in board elections and in the event of either a merger or acquisition. Shareholders are perfectly happy with this as long as their investments continue to increase in value.

So no, shareholders are NOT equivalent to the American population. If they were, Enron and Worldcom debacles wouldn't have happened.

Posted by: Skeptic in CA | July 30, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I am 1/4 german my last name is very german. I am also native american and dutch. I am also a chsitian. When people look at me, they see george bush. I'm the one who has to cash the checks the current gop is writing. Much like my mother and grandfater had to do before me, being germans. Even though my family was minanite.

Fascism is not the answer. NEver will be. If I don't speak up, who will. If the current gop will not listen to me, who will they listen to?

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Moreover, corporations are democracies. There are shareholders, who elect the Board. The Board elects and pays the officers. The shareholders fire board members all the time, who do the same to officers. Running a massive multi-national company is a much greater undertaking than being a one-term senator. But thereagain, most "anti-big-scary-business" Libs don't actually know much about corporations.

-ok, mike im not going to argue with that but saying you ran a muliti national and you did a horrible job, but yet you still get a bonus? is that rewarding failure? i mean sure you did well in other aspects of being a ceo but from my understanding of big buisness isnt the bottom line everything? just out of curiousity how many liberals do you know off hand that hate corperations?

i would love to stay to read your answer but i got a prior engagement so ill read what ever response you throw at me later.

Posted by: spartan | July 30, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"rufus will mark you as a goosestepping nazi.

rufus, only kidding, you keep giving them hell ok. "

:) HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. I gotta call them like I see them. I'm not shy :)HAHAHHA. That's funny spartan. Two shay :)

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Skeptic: gotta go but "the idea that no man can judge another's worthiness to receive God" suggests to me that you agree that the wacko bishop who said he wouldn't administer communion to Kerry belongs in a different church.

Oh, and I second Spartan's welcome to the blog. Getting any rain out there or is it heading toward 1977 again?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 30, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

don't get me started on the cathlic church. I will say one thing. I have wondered about the itailian/irish/northern mexican connection. How are they connected?

The false catholic church. The church that threw out the teachings of their God soon after the church was establihed. As you say, just wars, just murder. False prophets. confessing your sins to man? Worshipping idols? They told us there would be false prophets. :)

Read J Krishnamurti. the man was an enlightened genius. He has an order formed FOR him so his word could spread to all humitity. What did he do? Did he dominate the word with HIS will? No. He disbanded the order so the order and or HIM did not become what was important, as opposed to his teachings.

What a novil concept. I think the 60's were on point. Yeah they did a lot of drugs but it was, "Smoke this and read this". In the 70's 80's they lost the message and indulged. Greed me me me. This is where we are. How did you hippies go from the enlightenment of the 60's to the 70's 80's 90's? You misread the teachings of your masters in the 60's. Jim Morrison was not supposed to lead you as an old man. His LIFE was the lesson. Him and those hippies in the 60's taught us much more than we know, or that we learned. Forever young. Forever free. Isn't that what this country was founded on? Individual freedom?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

rufus, only kidding, you keep giving them hell ok.

Posted by: spartan | July 30, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Skeptic -- It sure looks like you're complaining about ignorance and partisan "blather", while simultaneously demonstrating both.

On life -- as you know from your upbringing, many believe unborn life is innocent life. On the other hand, terrorists and murderers are not innocent.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about the docrine of double effect - the idea that those who threaten the life of innocents forfeit their right to life. The Church has been torn on this issue for quite a long time.

So it would appear your jab at conservativism and life is not exactly founded in facts.

Moreover, corporations are democracies. There are shareholders, who elect the Board. The Board elects and pays the officers. The shareholders fire board members all the time, who do the same to officers. Running a massive multi-national company is a much greater undertaking than being a one-term senator. But thereagain, most "anti-big-scary-business" Libs don't actually know much about corporations.

Thereagain, demonstrating ignorance.

Finally (and probably my least impressive argument) is your blatant anti-Bush-Cheney posting, which stinks of partisanism (the exact thing you complained about).j

I do agree with you, our schools are obviously lacking. Especially for those who think themselves educated but aren't.

http://conservativestandards.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Mike | July 30, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Judge C. Crater -- because also intrinsic to Catholic teachings are the concepts of CONSCIENCE, FORGIVENESS, and contrary to popular belief regarding Roman Catholicism, the idea that no man can judge another's worthiness to receive God.

Posted by: Skeptic in CA | July 30, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

skeptic,thats a good post. hope you stay on the blog here longer.

well i guess i can confess(no pun intended)that im a lasped catholic but what i remember from my teachers other that english,science(and they taught evolution!)and history was caring for the poor, social justice and treating others how you want to be treated. its a shame that the right has hijacked religion only to promote its worldview and only paying lip service to the evangical base. its changing and hopefully the next dem nominee will talk about his or her faith more fully.

but hey welcome to the site if no one says it. im sure with in a week, zouk will call you a lib terrorist and rufus will mark you as a goosestepping nazi.

Posted by: spartan | July 30, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Please keep on coming back skeptic. We need REAL voices in here. Don't let the trolls scare you off, buddy.

You ever hear the gop say, "Why don't moderate muslims speak out against teh terrorist and defeat them."

I say the same thing about these false prophets. Why don't more chrsitians stand up and call the "religous" right for what it is. We were told their would be false prophets, right skeptic. The bible didn't lie to us. :)

Keep up the good work. They thing the trolls hate the most is truth. Bring the fear to them. You see their face when you claim ALL PRAISE TO THE ONE TRUE GOD, and they attack.

PEace to you skeptic. Come back. Ignore that which has no bearing. Ignore me, if prudent. Do you. Ignore that which has no bearing.

Good luck

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

"Note, that the Vatican for all of its problems, has long advocated the end of the death penalty and that Pope John Paul opposed the Iraq war."

Agreed but you don't see any Catholic bishops threatening to withold communion from people who support the death penalty.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 30, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for that response judge. Maybe I'm being to hard on the GOP. I just figured, once they found out Fox and Rush were lying to them, I thought they would turn on them and do this work I'm doing for me. Didn't work out that way. Who am I to blame now. I must blame the GOp'ers that stick with this fascsim now. I blamed fox and rush for years. They are now out as liars and propogandists. The dittoheads that follow them are to blame. Not the avatars themselves? This may be incorrect, but this is the conclusion I have came to. i have to fight fire with water. I didn't start this verbal battle. I have just been thrust in the middle

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

keep shooting off your mouth
-like your doing now. come one your making this too easy
I didn't see any dem blacks listed
-ok how about say deval patrick, the guy who suceeded romney? or better yet obama?
maxine waters?jim clayburn? and they would like you to call them AFRICAN AMERICANS. it seems that your the racist one here.

Just be sure to stay away from those losing issues the Libs don't want to talk about - like all of them.
-like what health care,the war in iraq? or better yet the economy? those are the issues acutal americans are agreeing with the democrats. even repubicans are agreeing with us? hows life in the minority so far?

who do you think falls for all your lies and spin anymore?
-you should meet king of zouk sometime, you guys will get along swimingly. he says the same thing too but no one takes him seriously too.

can you state one fact that supports any of your racist comments? didn't think so.
-i just did, i wasnt the one who used the word blacks. im not the one blinded by hatred and fear. better yet can you state any facts that didnt come from rush or hannity? need o'reilly to think for you? ill give you a min to come up with more strawmen and false accusations. or how about you just let the adults talk mmmkay?

Posted by: ssdd-no thoughts-just blind hate | July 30, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

You're right, Mike. Catholicism is "thousands of years of tradition." I was referring to Protestantism and didn't have exact figures off the top of my head; it was my fault for not being more clear.

Judge C. Crater, I was raised a Roman Catholic, and though I no longer associate with any church, the Catechism teachings of caring for the weak, the sick, the poor, and the hungry as well as the concept of "just wars" remain deeply embedded. (Note, that the Vatican for all of its problems, has long advocated the end of the death penalty and that Pope John Paul opposed the Iraq war.)

I have long found it ironic that the religious right's argument for the sanctity of life seems very selective -- aimed primarily at the unborn child. But once out of the womb, all bets seem to be off. Those on the extreme right seem to be the strongest advocates for the death penalty and war.

And for the person who argues that "executive experience" is more qualification than one term in the Senate -- I remind him that this was akin to G.W.'s pointing to his MBA. The reason that executive experience doesn't translate to the presidency is because corporations are NOT democracies. They are, by nature, TOP DOWN organizations. We live in a democracy where experience in compromise and political maneuvering is better experience than that in a corporate boardroom. You cannot force one point of view on half the people, which is what this administration has tried to do for the last 6 years, and look where it's gotten us. Never has the country been more polarized and thus more stymied.

The success of democracy is predicated on an educated populace, and it's too bad that our schools don't spend more time teaching us history and civics. Some of the comments I read on this blog as well as those on the NY Times, which, in theory, should have a more educated following, reek of incredible ignorance. Many simply spew partisan blather, so it's no wonder we end up with so leaders like Bush & Cheney!

Posted by: Skeptic in CA | July 30, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah, that is why we had the first black Sof S and 2nd. If you examine the clinton cabinet and the bush cabinet you may learn some facts instead of your ignorant spin. then look at the judiciary lying Lib. Libs are all talk and spin, repubs act."

mINORITIES AND WOMEN ARE ok to serve under you but not get elected on their own merit? Is that how the gop works std?

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

when you find someone like Madeleine allbright - that is a token, same as Janet reno.
-hi welcome to last week, they have been appointing women to high level positions for a long time. please do catch up
the clinton method.

-what 8 years of economic success and relative peace. millitary action with no deaths. wow that was horrible!

contrast that to Bush who found the best person for a job
-"your doing a heck of a job brownie!" yawn try again

despite all efforts by Byrd and his fellows, Colin powell, actually earned his spot as did rice.
-both were confirmed. do you have senator byrd(who by the way have apologized for being in the kkk)voting record on hand? and wasnt powell thrown overboard after the 04 election, for the more inept condi?

do facts get in the way of every single Lib argument?
-depends, does your blind hatred of democrats get in the way of reality?

Better stick with haircuts and cleavage
-yawn, i much rather focus on fred thompson's bland fundraising and his domineering wife,or mccain's campagin being on life support. who's left? ron paul?

And as is typical, the racist Dems like to argue about race and religion nonstop, while the adults in the Repubs party have moved on to issues
-yeah racist dems like trent lott or george allen, or that santorum guy. oh wait those were repubicans.

If you had some that made sense maybe you could participate.
-are you talking about yourself?

Posted by: ssdd-partisan troll | July 30, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

keep shooting off your mouth

funny in all that diatribe, I didn't see any dem blacks listed. Oh wait I know one - cynthia McKinney. How about that paragon of virtue - Jesse jackson or al sharpton - I keep forgetting, you can't sue your way into office, despite Al gore's feeble attampt to do just that.

Maybe if you stir up some alleged racism , you can increase your fundraising numbers. Just be sure to stay away from those losing issues the Libs don't want to talk about - like all of them.


I am sure your list will fit somewhere on this blog lying Lib hypocrite. who do you think falls for all your lies and spin anymore? do you have to get part of your brain removed to fit into your party these days? can you state one fact that supports any of your racist comments? didn't think so.

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
"it would appear that your beliefs may not equate to those of Republican strategists."
I have no doubt many of my beliefs don't equate to the positions taken by strategists. If the MSM makes something an issue, it's an issue regardless of the merit. It appears that the media thinks that Romney's religion is an issue and, therefore, his strategists need to address this issue. Whether that means that there is really anything to it or not with people that actually vote remains to be seen. Why the MSM thinks this is an issue is beyond me.

When the race started, other than Romney, there were seven Roman Catholics, three Methodists, three Baptists, one Episcopalian, one Presbyterian and one who is "simply" a Christian. I guess those are "acceptable religions" which have no controversial elements (he says sarcastically). However, it does not appear that any president was a true athiest. From the data, it appears that Romney would have a much bigger hurdle if he was an affirmed athiest. Now that would be an issue.

Posted by: Dave! | July 30, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Do not feed the trolls.

Posted by: Zookeeper | July 30, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

If the dems run Clinton/Obama, then realistically we really should have a woman or AA on the ticket. (cue Tina)

probably not going to happen. sorry to dash your dreams there proud. hell we dont know if hilary is going to win the primaries. besides as proven, the vp slot really dont bring any added states into play. just ask john edwards.

Posted by: spartan | July 30, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

when you find someone like Madeleine allbright - that is a token, same as Janet reno. the clinton method. contrast that to Bush who found the best person for a job and as it turns out, despite all efforts by Byrd and his fellows, Colin powell, actually earned his spot as did rice. do facts get in the way of every single Lib argument? Better stick with haircuts and cleavage.

And as is typical, the racist Dems like to argue about race and religion nonstop, while the adults in the Repubs party have moved on to issues. If you had some that made sense maybe you could participate.

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, that is why we had the first black Sof S and 2nd. If you examine the clinton cabinet and the bush cabinet you may learn some facts instead of your ignorant spin. then look at the judiciary lying Lib. Libs are all talk and spin, repubs act.

thats all you can point out to? 2 blacks appointed to secstate? ok what about in other positions? defense?nope just a cia spook! vice president? nah just another white guy? what about minority leader, nope white guy, ok what about senators? nope white guys some white women,maybe 1 lebanese guy and a cuban. wanna keep shooting off your mouth son? wanna list some credible african american canidates? alan keyes? ok i should have said sane too.

keep shooting off your mouth son you sounding like a sad pathetic troll

Posted by: ssdd-partisan troll | July 30, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Proud: "cue Tina." Please don't. Or Crystal Dueker. They may be more polite but they make KOZ look firmly anchored to reality.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 30, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

then go out and pander for their votes on the empty promise of more government money - the promise to keep them down forever, as you have always done.

can you cite the times where the dems have pandered to minorities? wow thats better than the gop totally ignoring them entirely, and trotting out the tokens and saying"see were not racists!"

Posted by: ssdd made a funny! | July 30, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"current gop is full of fascsit racists"

Yeah, that is why we had the first black Sof S and 2nd. If you examine the clinton cabinet and the bush cabinet you may learn some facts instead of your ignorant spin. then look at the judiciary lying Lib. Libs are all talk and spin, repubs act.

then go out and pander for their votes on the empty promise of more government money - the promise to keep them down forever, as you have always done.

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Rudy's foibles have not been the subject of national attention or high-level litigation such as we have all endured with the Clintons. Therefore his baggage may not even show up on the radar of many Americans, whereas with Hillary Clinton - one has to only scratch the surface and it all comes spilling back out into the national psyche...like a cancerous lesion that won't heal.
proudtobegop-i may have to differ. unlike hilary(who's baggage have been dragged out repeatedly) rudy has been given a free pass so far. when it gets closer to the primaries, dont you think that maybe a undecided voter might google his name? or maybe a unflattering article in the morning newspaper or the nightly news? or heck any of the other gop canidates will be more than glad to air a 30 second ad about mayor 9/11's foibles?

if you dont and you really do belive his hype, i got a nice bridge to sell you.

Posted by: spartan | July 30, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

The God Makers gives a pretty good presentation of Mormonism, by deprogrammed Mormons. Mormons actually do believe that, as temple married, good Moromons, they will become Gods with their own worlds and own worshipping people. Well, duh! I though we already had one of those with George W. We need another one of him like we need a hole in the head. No thank you!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't discount the possibility

because that is all they know how to do.

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"which candidates do you think WOULD accept, and be useful at, the VP nomination"

If the dems run Clinton/Obama, then realistically we really should have a woman or AA on the ticket. (cue Tina)

Michael Steele would be good. Judge pointed out some time ago that some of my favorite picks are waaay too insular.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 30, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"Do you think the current gop is full of fascsit racists?"

If I interpret "full of" as being equal to a majority, I'd say that yes, most GOP'ers have racist tendencies. Are they all fascists? No. I'd say that many GOP'ers (note that I didn't say 'all' or even 'most') just don't think things through and want to take the short cut if it allows them to 'win' in an increasingly complex world. The fact that the ends often never justify the means and other pearls of wisdom that underlie our democracy is lost on them.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 30, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

proud writes
"Witness her campaign's very determined attempt to re-brand her as just "Hillary"."

Well, there is a practical side as well; not unlike GW Bush's candidacy, there has to be a distinction between the prior and the current. In GW's case, it was the jettisoning of his lifelong nickname of 'Junior' in favor of 'W', or 'dubya'. If she's elected, perhaps Hillary will be referred to as Clinton 44 to differentiate from Clinton 42.

Regarding Giuliani's foibles, they haven't yet become a cancerous lesion on the national psyche because there hasn't yet been a multi-year, multi-million dollar probe into his behavior. Given the allegations already made about some of his actions & associations, I wouldn't discount the possibility if he's elected & the Dems gain a few more seats in both Houses.

Posted by: bsimon | July 30, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Romney has done a lot in his life, and has clearly made his share of mistakes. We all make mistakes.

In my opinion his drive to the right is about the biggest blunder a person could make.

Still, outside his switch to Reaganism, Romney LEARNS from his mistakes and he tries again using the lessons learned.

If his faith is an attribute that contributes to his positivism, it might be something for us all to give a little serious thought to.

Posted by: robert chapman | July 30, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

DCAustinite- Rudy's foibles have not been the subject of national attention or high-level litigation such as we have all endured with the Clintons. Therefore his baggage may not even show up on the radar of many Americans, whereas with Hillary Clinton - one has to only scratch the surface and it all comes spilling back out into the national psyche...like a cancerous lesion that won't heal.

Witness her campaign's very determined attempt to re-brand her as just "Hillary". All the campaign signs, bumper stickers, tee-shirts , the website etc.- no mention of the name Clinton anywhere."

ProudtoBeGOP - i certainly agree with that, she's not my candidate. That's one o the main reasons, the other being I don't trust her. I trust Obama (for now), but I'm liking Biden more and more. Hillary hasn't won the Dem nomination yet.

But I'm curious, isn't there a possibility that all rudy's foibles are missing to be like hillary's is a little national attention? I mean, that's what I mean by who controls the spin. If he's in the lead down the stretch...

Posted by: DCAustinite | July 30, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

skeptic's remarks were spot on. i dont have a problem with romney's religion.or him talking about his faith, what i do have a problem with is someone talking about their faith and doing the complete reverse of it.that and trying to impose their faith on the public at large.

why were even having this conversation in this day and age is stupid. lets be lucky that we have a african american,a woman,a latino and a mormon running for the highest office in the land.

Posted by: spartan | July 30, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

No mention of her law career. no mention of the most corrupt administration in history, no mention of the cash machine, no mention of any accomplishments, walking the fine line of "experience" as first lady, trying to finesse the war vote without apology or recrimination. If you like liars (and you do) vote for Hill.

Simply an old carpetbagger.

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I hear you judge. Excellant points. That's one of the reasons I am here. The misrepresentation of my religon by fascsits misleading the sheep :) I hear that. Both skeptic and yourself are on point, as far as OUR religon.

"What? We aren't psychically linked twins separated at birth?" :)

To the question. Do you think the current gop is full of fascsit racists? I didn't read your response as an answer to that?

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

DCAustinite- Rudy's foibles have not been the subject of national attention or high-level litigation such as we have all endured with the Clintons. Therefore his baggage may not even show up on the radar of many Americans, whereas with Hillary Clinton - one has to only scratch the surface and it all comes spilling back out into the national psyche...like a cancerous lesion that won't heal.

Witness her campaign's very determined attempt to re-brand her as just "Hillary". All the campaign signs, bumper stickers, tee-shirts , the website etc.- no mention of the name Clinton anywhere.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 30, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

you wish. If so why would I post as rufus all day. I don't have enough time to post as other posters, I post enough as rufus :)

Whatever makes you sleep snuggly in your bed at night HAHAHAHA

Keep telling your self bedtime stories. It works so well with you GOp'ers. Bush and Fox have been telling you stories for years now

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

so he was a Dem and he acted like a modern Dem. Quelle surprise

get over yourself partisan. a democrat in the 1870's was conservative. republicans were liberal. both have been switching sides since the nation was founded.
but i guess in your case stupid is forever!

Posted by: ssdd:partisan troll | July 30, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"If so why do you think the RNC would fear quoting a dem but not know fascist racist?"

Rufus, is this a serious question? You already know my answer because it's the same as yours. A one-word answer is 'politics.' A longer answer would involve nature vs nuture and the competitive dynamics of what drives politicians to do what they do. I'm starting to fall asleep just typing these words although that has more to do with the fact that my kids are small and don't sleep worth a darn.

"I don't agree with you, you probably don't aree with me."

What? We aren't psychically linked twins separated at birth?

"I am tired of politicians who invoke the principles of Christianity and yet pillage the earth, refuse to care for the poor and the weak, turn away the needy, and are so quick to draw the sword."

Amen, skeptical Californian. In this sense Christianity is as cursed as Islam by an inability to eject those who sound like believers but don't act like them. Bush executed 155 people as Governor of Texas. The Bible I'm familiar with disqualifies him as a Christian. Romney (who executed zero people as Governor of Mass.) is infinitely more "Christ-like" but the loonies of the right are going to be far more concerned with his religion. Go figure.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 30, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

rufas/rufus/zouk/razorback/willam/ssdd/anoncoward, all the same sad person.

Posted by: attention posters:please dont feed the trolls | July 30, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"Um, hello? Anybody else see some GIANT red flags here? I'd say this is the kind of thing that we need to make sure we notify our Congresspeople that we do not support-at least if they want to claim even a semblance of being strong on terror.

NYTimes (reg. req'd.)

The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia's role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.

In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said"

Posted by: http://www.crooksandliars.com/ | July 30, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Skeptic Said: "[Catholicism] was the basis for all Protestant religions, ergo, hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition."

I like to think around 2000 years of tradition ;)

Proud -- You're right about Rudy being consistent. I really like that, and can see many people drawn to that. Especially the "swing vote", which will be key.

I'm not saying he'll ever win over the "extremists", just that the extremists just might be the ones yelling the loudest (witness previous "America's Mayor" posts).

Interestingly, the Democrats will overwhemingly support a felon/liar/bully, whereas you and I are having a hard time choosing between a flip-flopper, a moderate, and a (seemingly) hesitant, old guy.

Do you think Rudy would settle for VP? (I would personally bring him to the cabinet if it were me).

For that matter, which candidates do you think WOULD accept, and be useful at, the VP nomination?

Posted by: Mike | July 30, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

while he was no member, he 'intend[ed]' to kill radical Republicans

so he was a Dem and he acted like a modern Dem. Quelle surprise!

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

That's the GOP game Will. Lie spin discredit. That's ALL they can do. I misspell words on purpose. This gives them something to attack other than the facts.

Don't get angry. If all they can do is attack you, your points must be on point. If they spend their WHOLE day attacking you. You must be saying some powerful tstatements, otherwise why would they waste their time.

They tried it on me. They lost, many times. Just keep speaking you mind. Ignore the trolls. You put fear in them. Why? Truth. You cannot combat truth with lies and misdirection. YOu lose everytime. Keep speaking your mind. Keep speaking truth from your heart. do so and you are unstaoppable. Unless Bush's patriot act cronies throguh you in jail of course. But then again, I'll have you back if that happens. The gop's rascist time is done. They have a year. Rather than trying to fix the damage they have caused the last fifteen years they would rather come in here and attack us daily.

Again. They have to. If the GOP told the truth, if they talked about their real gaols, they would be eliminated from the public sphere for good. don't hate them. Help them. don't attack back. Keep up the good work. Them attacking you shows all independant thinkers who come here to read what the gop is really about. lies spin discredit $$$$$$$ sabotage.

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

this blog tunes out freaks like you everyday. We are also swamped with the bile you create. Eventually, all that silliness must be confronted and revealed to the light of day. Like we did with Ned Lamont, Edwards, Kucinich, gore, Kerry, Dean, and you. If you really do go away maybe we CAN get back to some substance.

there is only one Kos koward and you sir, are not him. He is clearly at his conference today, stirring up hate and envy. how envious, your post, of all the other Libs with a brain. (or half a brain in rufas' case)

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Mike- With Rudy it's always been 'what you see is what you get'. He hasn't tried to sugar coat anything, be it his political views or his personal life.

Whatever baggage he has may turn off the extremists, but the moderates won't have a problem with it imo, especially since the (eventual) dem candidate has some baggage of her own."

He's certainly always been upfront. I think some moderates would like Giuliani, I think some won't. I think it matters entirely on who controls the spin. He's got a lot of baggage (as all do on all sides), I just think Rudy probably has a little more than others. Your thoughts?

Posted by: DCAustinite | July 30, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Mike- With Rudy it's always been 'what you see is what you get'. He hasn't tried to sugar coat anything, be it his political views or his personal life.

Whatever baggage he has may turn off the extremists, but the moderates won't have a problem with it imo, especially since the (eventual) dem candidate has some baggage of her own.

For the general election, VP selection may be more important in '08 than in any other recent election, as it will potentially mitigate the negatives that everyone seems to have.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 30, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

well said skeptic

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

As far as mormonism. Has anyone researched are talked to mormons about there religon. About the tenats of "their version" of christianity.

Not that I take the bible word for word, personally. I believe some of the words of the prophets. I believe Jesus's teachings are truth. But WOW. The mormon faith is out there.

Mormons out there! Is it true a man rowed a small boat from europe to America and settled in Utah, the time of Jesus? Was he the first indian? WOW. Where are the golden tablets? I'm not a uper religous scholar. I have known many mormons. I have to think on my experiances. No disrespect to mormons out there. But you are clones. Don't be mad at me. Break free from the borg slavery :)

NEvermeind. go back to haircut stories.

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"I may have mixed you up with our resident Krazy Kos Koward. you certainly have significant similarities. but then all you loony lefties sound and look the same. ever heard of a shower? manners? taste? I can only guess you have not.

why do all your women look like men and all your men behave like women? Interesting."

Yawn.

Meanwhile, ssdd, decent people from the left and the right like Mike, Judge Crater, Rufus and Sean have been able to have meaningful, real dialogue about candidates without being baited and distracted into commenting with you and your inflammatory crap, because you've been too busy responding to me. They can and have just tuned us both out.

But now I have to head home, so they're on their own. Crater, Rufus, watch out. you'll be his Krazy Kos Koward next.

Good night y'all. I enjoyed reading y'all posts. :-)

Posted by: Will | July 30, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Religion is philosophy, so, naturally, Romney's faith will play a factor. But it would be wrong to compare JFK's Catholicism to Romney's Mormonism, for the former was the basis for all Protestant religions, ergo, hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition. In contrast, the Church of Latter Day Saints was founded in 1830, with founder Joseph Smith's first "vision" occurring when he was only 14 years old. Call me a skeptic, but there is something fundamentally wrong with not questioning the "translations" (Book of Mormon) of one man and never permitting non-members into their temple, despite claiming to believe that we all are children of God yet. Mormonism may not have a direct effect on Romney's ability to govern, but I reject any politician who thinks it is okay to impose their religious beliefs on me -- which, for all intents and purposes, eliminates Republicans in my book. I am tired of politicians who invoke the principles of Christianity and yet pillage the earth, refuse to care for the poor and the weak, turn away the needy, and are so quick to draw the sword.

It won't be Mormonism that will be the downfall of Romney. It will be the extreme right form of Republicanism that he, too, seems so willing to embrace.

Posted by: Skeptic in CA | July 30, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I may have mixed you up with our resident Krazy Kos Koward. you certainly have significant similarities. but then all you loony lefties sound and look the same. ever heard of a shower? manners? taste? I can only guess you have not.

why do all your women look like men and all your men behave like women? Interesting.

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Personally I think it shows what the RNc is about when they quote a fascsit racsit and no one bats an eye. Quote a marxist/socialist/liberal/democrat (any of the above) the hell-fire comes down.

Kinda shows you the state of the current GOP doesn't it.

"Congress needs to send the generals the mostest, Mr. Speaker, needs to send equipment and personnel that is needed. Doing this will help our mission in spite of the Congressional Surrender Group's desire to retreat and quit," he added.

Poe left out Forrest's history as a founder of the Ku Klux Klan, in addition to fighting on the side of the Confederacy.

"Although he repeatedly denied membership - even lying to Congress - Forrest in fact led the Klan through one of its most violent and successful periods, when robed terrorists succeeded in rolling back Reconstruction. He even told one newspaper reporter that while he was no member, he 'intend[ed]' to kill radical Republicans," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"policy is hard - better left to the adults."

Well, I'm glad you recognize you're not up to the task. Why not go back to calling me a Krazy Kos Koward? That's easier than thinking. Is this the intellect of the right? I admit, it pretty much is the sole policy of the far right, so maybe you're on to something, SSDD.

Posted by: Will | July 30, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"A Texas Republican Congressman invoked a founding Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in a floor speech he delivered yesterday in support of the Iraq War.

"Nathan Bedford Forrest, successful Confederate general, said it best about winning and victory and the means to do so. He said: 'Get there firstest with the mostest,'" said Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) in a one-minute floor speech at the beginning of Monday's session in the House of Representatives.

Poe then called on Congress to fund the war in Iraq."

Posted by: I found it | July 30, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Proud-- Regarding Romney's flip-flops.

I think those are more important than his faith, but I am hesitant to compare them [the flip flops] to Rudy's (effectively) pro-life stance.

In the end, I don't know which is the larger issue to me personally.

I do think people can change their mind, late in life, even, as Reagan demonstrated.

Did Romney make himself out as a moderate to win in the most Liberal state?

Probably.

Was that the right thing to do? That's certainly debatable.

But I don't necessarily think that he has flip-flopped on HIS beliefs, even if he has done so on his APPEARANCE (which, like I said, was understandable, and most likely unacceptable to many primary voters).

I do agree with a lot of what you have written about Rudy -- and it being no contest if it comes down to him beating Hillary.

And I would certainly prefer him to her.

That's a long answer to your question, I know. Do you not also think that Rudy has some baggage (real, or imagined by the Rufus' of the world?)

Posted by: Mike | July 30, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

NEVER compare the bumbling opportunist Romney to JFK - even in this muddled context. Are you kidding?

http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | July 30, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

What will worry most evangelical and/or conservative voters about Mitt is his penchant to flip-flop, not his religion. I really think Romney made a large mistake by running hard right and not center right. He could have targeted the "moderates" Guliani (sp) is after--perhaps with greater success. Romney does have decent executive experience and his change of mind on abortion would have been a crucial asset Guliani lacked. Instead, Romney decided, for whatever bizare reason, to go hard right which opens him up to (highly accurate) charges of flip-flopping. Had he run as a moderate he need not have explained his religion nor opened himself up to flip-flopping charges. Alas, Romney is too weak or lacks conviction to stand by his previous "beliefs". Now he finds himself courting people who don't trust his religion and once they find out about his past, they won't trust him (and rightly so).

Posted by: Sean | July 30, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"the lickspittle that forms "

the intellect of the left on display. policy is hard - better left to the adults.

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"If so why do you think the RNC would fear quoting a dem but not know fascist racist?"

If so why do you think the RNC would fear quoting a dem but not a known fascist racist? Sorry

Also, why did no one on the right call him on it. Not sure who it was sorry. Allegorily speaking, if that's a word :)

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"If so why do you think the RNC would fear quoting a dem but not know fascist racist?"

If so why do you think the RNC would fear quoting a dem but not a known fascist facist? Sorry

Also, why did no one on the right call him on it. Not sure who it was sorry. Allegorily speaking, if that's a word :)

Posted by: rufus | July 30, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Wow, you really hate dailykos, huh? For me it's just a site to visit every now and then, for you it seems to be your raison d'etre. What would you do if it didn't exist? Well, I'm a big ol' permissive liberal so I say, live and let live, hate who you want, as long as it makes you happy, ssdd.

Posted by: Will | July 30, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"He needs to but he'll pay a penalty in quoting a Democrat."

Question Judge, no malice. I respect your opinion. You correct wrote he will pay a penalty by quoting a dem. Didn't a republcian quote the klu klux klan founder sometime this year, I don't know if it was the house or senate? If so why do you think the RNC would fear quoting a dem but not know fascist racist? Which is worse?

Again, no malice. Interested in your opinion on that. You are on point always. I don't agree with you, you probably don't aree with me. Just a question. No expectations.

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 30, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Romney comparing himself to JFK looks reasonable only when compared with Bush comparing himself to Harry Truman.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 30, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"always on that topic Kos - talk about creepy. that concern must take up a lot of your free time. your view of the world is perverted and demented. Are you surprised no one outside of this blog will talk to you? You are tasteless, classless and base. you belong at Kos with your friends. don't think that middle of the road Dems aren't noticing. All you kooks had your shot and blew it. go back to oblivion where you belong. Loser

your candidate Hillary is running from you freaks as fast as she can manage."

Dude, you are sooo cute when you're angry! I think the lickspittle that forms at the corner of your mouth and that vein that appears on your forehead are just adorable! Are you part of a collectible set? Kinda like the franklin mint: ever dwindling numbers and guaranteed only to go up in rarity and value as time goes on!

Posted by: Will | July 30, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

JTP202: JFK also set the standard by clearly stating that his administration would be governed in a manner that put the Constitution above his own religion. Since he would have to swear on a Bible to uphold the Consitution, applying Catholic principles to government would be "sinning against God," in Kennedy's own words.

Not sure if Romney will revist that type of rhetoric or not. He needs to but he'll pay a penalty in quoting a Democrat.

It is interesting that Bush so clearly DOESN'T put upholding the Constitution above much of anything especially his own faith. It's obvious that many Protestants only care about that when non-Protestants have a shot at becoming President.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 30, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"Dude, please stop masturbating while you type. It's creepy"

always on that topic Kos - talk about creepy. that concern must take up a lot of your free time. your view of the world is perverted and demented. Are you surprised no one outside of this blog will talk to you? You are tasteless, classless and base. you belong at Kos with your friends. don't think that middle of the road Dems aren't noticing. All you kooks had your shot and blew it. go back to oblivion where you belong. Loser

your candidate Hillary is running from you freaks as fast as she can manage.

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

For anyone that cares. My boycott of Fox News got it's first confirmed kill today. One down dozens more to go.

"Dear Lowe's Customer:

Thank you for your comments regarding the program, The O?Reilly Factor.

Lowe?s has strict guidelines that govern the placement of our advertising. Our
company advertises primarily in national, network prime-time television programs
and on a variety of cable outlets.

Lowe?s constantly reviews advertising buys to make certain they are consistent
with its policy guidelines. The O?Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe?s
advertising guidelines, and the company?s advertising will no longer appear
during the program.

We are dedicated to providing the best service, products, and shopping
environment in the home improvement industry. All three of these are very
important to our business, and our customers will always be our number one
priority.

We appreciate your contacting us, and hope this information addresses your
concerns.

Thank You,

Lowe's Customer Care "

to help with the cause. Instead of griping let's take action agaisnt Fox the only way we can in a capitalist society

http://bravenewfilms.org/foxads

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/07/24/advertisers_on_the_oreilly_factor_update_707.php

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 30, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

SSDD "We don't dislike him for mormonism - it is the flip-flopping."

Thank you! Mike- Do you not agree that this is a much bigger problem than Rudy's principled stand on govt. involvement in choice?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 30, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"Look, he's going to have to find a way to explain the magic underwear away. '

the ignorance of the left

You've got some anger, Will aka Kos Koward"

Dude, please stop masturbating while you type. It's creepy.

Posted by: Will | July 30, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"Look, he's going to have to find a way to explain the magic underwear away. '

the ignorance of the left

You've got some anger, Will aka Kos Koward

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

JFK's task was more straightforward in that he needed to articulate the way his faith would impact his leadership. Romney has to do the same thing in addition to introducing most of America to Mormonism.

Posted by: JTP202 | July 30, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"yet Republican strategists cite it as the reason "

who are these "strategists" the ones I have seen have no real jobs. they just wander from show to show spouting opinion. why is it that they can't get a real paying job on a campaign or at a think tank or such? when did that become a job title/description. I personally know at least one and she is a total joke.

We don't dislike him for mormonism - it is the flip-flopping. McCain - we don't dislike him for the war - it is mccain/feingold, gang of 14, etc.

how come all those strategists can't find the truth in all their sagacity?

Posted by: ssdd | July 30, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"Kowardly Kos klone (or klown) - aren't you supposed to be in chicago at your conference of fellow moonbats?

you ought to bottle up all that negative energy and apply it to work some good, instead of your usual cynicism, envy and hate. you might actually win an election some day."

Wow, just wow. You've got some anger. Get out of your mom's basement, dude. The sun is shining, it's a beautiful day. The sun will do you good.

Posted by: Will | July 30, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure that Mitt was brain-washed by the Democrats in Massachusetts--but no longer.

How do you spell "opportunist?" It's r-o-m-n-e-y.

Just imagine if Fred Thompson had his hair! Too bad he has no convictions that are more than a month old. If he should survive the primaries, the "flip-flop policy" acne scars will reappear--no matter how much he spends on make-up. He makes Ahnold look like a statesman, and that's saying a lot. Maybe Raul Castro will sell him a few acres in Cuba for a vacation home. Oh, wait, he doesn't need any more.

Posted by: pacman | July 30, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"Since Giuliani Partners' inception, the newspaper also reported, it has earned more than $100 million."


so rudy knows how to start and run a profitable business. contrast this to hillary who knows how to tax and live off the government. why no mention of her 15 year career in law? Why Hill? what are you hiding this time?

As opposed to someone who knows how to lie to a jury and run up insurance premiums, not that there's anything wrong with that.

as opposed to someone who inspires hope and not much else.

Well duh?

"How much theyy pay you for this, Jermaine?" dontcha just wish someone would pay you for your opinions, KKK? I believe you are getting paid exactly what they are worth - zero. see, the market does work.

Posted by: SSDD | July 30, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Dave! -- I can speak for myself, a Roman Catholic from Texas -- and I wouldn't exclude myself from voting for Romney based on his faith. I would have more of a problem voting for Rudy (based on abortion) than for Mitt (based on Mormonism). I don't know how many people my particular opinion represents though...

Posted by: Mike | July 30, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Dave! writes
"Conservatives are the ones that are supposed to believe that people should look at a persons merit, character, accomplishments, etc and not at factors like skin color, gender or religious affiliation".

Dave!- I sense that you are on the brink of an epiphany. Please review Chris' opening post, I'll quote the relevant sentence. "Time and time again unaffiliated Republican strategists have told The FIx that if Romney wasn't a Mormon he would be the frontrunner for the GOP nod."

So, Dave!, it would appear that your beliefs may not equate to those of Republican strategists. You blame the MSM for Romney's religion being a topic - yet Republican strategists cite it as the reason Gov Romney isn't the frontrunner. Let that inconvenient little data point muddle around your head for a moment, and let us know whether the epiphany strikes.

Posted by: bsimon | July 30, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, Mitt has spent his life in executive roles.

Just because he's not a life-long politician doesn't mean he's not extremely experienced.

I'm not arguing he's the MOST experienced, but he's certainly better off than a 1-term Senator.

Posted by: Mike | July 30, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Blarg notes
"why do you think Mitt Romney is the most experienced candidate? He was governor of Massachusetts for one term. At the end of his term, he was extremely unpopular with the people of Massachusetts..."

Wait, isn't that true of Giuliani too? Meaning that bit about being unpopular at the end of his term. What's with these guys?

Anyhow, my real point is this, and I've made it before: I am amazed, literally slack-jaw amazed, at the collective inexperience of the front-runners for both parties.

Romney- one term gov
Giuliani- two term mayor
Hillary- 1 term Senator
Edwards- 1 term Senator
Obama- <1 term Senator
F.Thompson- 1 term (and 1/3) Senator

Is this really the best we can come up with for becoming the most powerful person in the world?

Posted by: bsimon | July 30, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

For the Republican nomination, his faith should have NO impact. Conservatives are the ones that are supposed to believe that people should look at a persons merit, character, accomplishments, etc and not at factors like skin color, gender or religious affiliation (or lack thereof). If conservatives want to take principled stands against affirmative action, preferences and the likes, they have to be able to actually look at people in a transparent way and judge them accordingly. While I feel confident that the MSM will make this an issue as long as Romney is in the race, i'll be interested to see what conservatives, especially the southern religious one, do.

Posted by: Dave! | July 30, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Kowardly Kos klone (or klown) - aren't you supposed to be in chicago at your conference of fellow moonbats?

you ought to bottle up all that negative energy and apply it to work some good, instead of your usual cynicism, envy and hate. you might actually win an election some day.

Posted by: SSDD | July 30, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney is no Jack Kennedy.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 30, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Jermaine, why do you think Mitt Romney is the most experienced candidate? He was governor of Massachusetts for one term. At the end of his term, he was extremely unpopular with the people of Massachusetts, partially because of his constant mockery of the state, and his hand-picked successor lost by a huge margin. How does that make him the most experienced candidate?

Posted by: Blarg | July 30, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Father John's Pizzeria writes
"[Mitt] realizes that he could actually *gasp* score points by *gasp* directly addressing a specific issue! But then again, an angry GOPer could cynically retort by pointing out that if Mitt is so clear about his faith, then why can't he be clear about his other talking points?"

Did you see yesterday's Doonesbury? Mr Trudeau takes a rather pointed shot at the former Governor's curious change of heart regarding abortion rather late in life.

Even if Gov Romney can convince the evangelicals that Mormonism is not equal to Satanism, he still will have to overcome the flip-flop hurdle in the general. The man's best hopes for the nomination lie in the weakness of the competition.

Posted by: bsimon | July 30, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

"Will it quiet skeptics in the evangelical community?"

Substitute the word 'KKK' for the phrase "evangelical community" and you'll have your answer.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | July 30, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

' I know that Obama, Hillary, and Edwards don't have the will that America needs to stand up to Iran, Russia, and the terrorists. '

And Pretty Mitty who spends $400 on makeup does? How much theyy pay you for this, Jermaine?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Why does the media focus so much on Romney's religion? The question is always whether a Mormon can be president. Nobody ever looks at his lack of experience, or his despicable treatment of the people of Massachusetts. I've never seen any articles about his policy positions, or anything describing what he'd do as president. No, apparently the only thing worth discussing about Mitt Romney is his religion.

Posted by: Blarg | July 30, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Gimme that old time religion, its good enough for me!

But seriously, Mitt is making this happen. He never wanted it to be an issue, but he realizes that he could actually *gasp* score points by *gasp* directly addressing a specific issue! But then again, an angry GOPer could cynically retort by pointing out that if Mitt is so clear about his faith, then why can't he be clear about his other talking points (abortion, gays, etc)? No matter what, I want to see this speech, the political geek I am.

Posted by: Father John's Pizzeria | July 30, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

*To Will, who posted the first comment. First of all, the Mormons do not call it magic underwear and do not think it is "magic". They are worn to remember to be loyal to God and especially to be loyal to their wife!

Secondly, whoever wrote about the Mormon fundamentalists has obviously not been paying attention. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Real Mormons) have continuously criticized and distanced themselves from the crazy fundamentalists. They want to see those groups locked up more than the rest of the country because it gives them a bad reputation.

I am an African-American and traditionally democrat but I am supporting Mr. Romney 100%. I don't care what small differences his faith has with mine, nor what his ancestors did, nor what other crazy people do, nor do I hold onto racist feelings that eminated from everyone 30 to 40 years ago. I know that Obama, Hillary, and Edwards don't have the will that America needs to stand up to Iran, Russia, and the terrorists. I don't agree with Mitt on some socail issues but he'll get my vote because he is the most experienced. He is so much more qualified than the others that it is laughable.

Posted by: Jermaine | July 30, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

No one was surprised when Giuliani presented her, one year later, with a $20,000 Ceylon sapphire-and-diamond ring, selected by the bride-to-be at a store in Atlanta, to which she had flown with one New York City police officer.

What did astonish friends was the venue where the couple exchanged vows before 400 guests: the lawn of Gracie Mansion, with Mayor Bloomberg officiating. On May 24, 2003, Vera Wang, Barbara Walters, Henry Kissinger, and Donald Trump all witnessed Judith triumph at Donna's old home. "It was definitely Judith's idea to have it at Gracie," a close confidant tells me.

Judith clearly put special thought into the occasion. The train of her pale Vera Wang dress was studded with Swarovski crystals; on her dark-red hair perched a Fred Leighton diamond-and-pearl-encrusted tiara.

"There is a reason why she wore that tiara at her wedding: she really does see herself as a princess," says another former Giuliani aide. "Not as a queen. Queen is her goal. Queen is who she wants to be."
Queenly is certainly what Judith became, her demands and expectations heightened in large part by her husband's new affluence. Giuliani Partners (where she maintains an office) was established five years ago with the help of Giuliani's onetime chief of staff Anthony Carbonetti. It is a firm with management-consulting and security divisions; its clients, as The Washington Post reported, include Purdue Pharma, which hired the firm while being investigated by the D.E.A. and the F.D.A. over deaths stemming from the misuse of its painkiller OxyContin, and the Florida-based Seisint, Inc., which produces a data-mining product. Since Giuliani Partners' inception, the newspaper also reported, it has earned more than $100 million.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

As a registered nurse, young Judi spent only a few months at Sacred Heart Hospital, in Allentown, Pennsylvania. She would never care for patients after that. She had other plans. At 19 she married Jeffrey Ross, a U.S. Surgical salesman six years her senior.
In short order both Rosses were working in Charlotte, North Carolina, for U.S. Surgical (now part of Tyco Healthcare), which eventually grew into a billion-dollar enterprise marketing surgical staplers. Judi was excellent at her work, and earned $40,000 a year by the late 70s. But problems arose when animal-rights groups began investigating the way the company sold its products--problems recently pointed out by the New York press. U.S. Surgical used dogs in demonstrations to doctors and hospitals as part of its marketing plan.
"Every salesperson at U.S. Surgical was trained for six weeks with dogs at Lincoln Hospital in the Bronx, and that was really brutal," explains a former employee. "They spent days and days with dogs, taking out the spleen or stomach or the lobe of a lung. Then if the dog started moaning or fidgeted, whoever was closest would push more sedative into him from the syringe. It was horrible. Then the dog would be killed with potassium chloride."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The mayor began to spend his weekends--accompanied, as the New York Post reported, by a detail of detectives, which cost taxpayers $3,000 a tryst--in Southampton, where Judith owned a condominium. Since he had until then always accounted for his weekends, says the incisive Giuliani biographer Wayne Barrett, "his press office started telling reporters, 'He's teaching Andrew how to play golf.' Now, Andrew's old enough to understand--he has to be aware that his father used him as a beard!"

At the annual Saint Patrick's Day Parade, in 2000, Judith marched right behind the mayor. She was by his side when he went to the hospital for prostate tests a month later and then learned he had cancer. When he decided to leave Hanover, in May, he made a public announcement--"Judith Nathan is a very, very fine person" were his words, "and I'm going to need her more now than maybe I did before." That was how his wife of 16 years discovered her marriage was over.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

And how about the Mormon fundamentalists? I've never heard him condemn them yet-- and they still marry 13 year old girls off to their 40 year old uncles. Why won't he condemn them? Because most Mormons still think polygamy is just fine.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 30, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

CC writes "R strategists have told The FIx that if Romney wasn't a Mormon he would be the frontrunner for the GOP nod."

Well all I can say is, thank God he's Mormon!!!!

If Nevadans want to elect him as Senator or Governor, then fine. They don't seem to care about the strange religiosity of their elected officials out there. As for the rest of the country, lots of luck with that Mitty. Comparing yourself to JFK has lots of drawbacks, imho.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 30, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Look, he's going to have to find a way to explain the magic underwear away. It's a tenet of the faith, and though I think it in and of itself is harmless, it won't sit well with red America.

Posted by: Will | July 30, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company