MUST IT BE ROMNEY IN 2012?
He must be next in line. The GOP poohbahs are lining up with the former Massachusetts governor already and here we are still more than 3 years away from the election.
Patricia Chadwick of CNBC jumps on the Romney bandwagon with both feet:
If the economy is still in limbo, Mitt Romney will have the opportunity of a lifetime. He understands economics; he knows how industry and business should work to thrive; he has had both private and public experience; he even studied and signed into law a health care system. For sure he will be able to talk to its strengths and weaknesses, what it can do and what it cannot do.
In all the political kerfuffle unfolding today, Mitt Romney has gravitas—no sexual scandals, a few grey hairs, a total lack of demagoguery, confidence but not arrogance, an ability to lead successfully and an understanding of the sanctity of the private sector in this country. Those attributes should stand him in good stead when the 2012 Presidential campaign starts to unfold in barely more than a year from now.
Jon Martin of Politico has been tracking the Romney buzz and discovered that the mass of Romney supporters and staffers in the early primary states are already standing by, waiting for the word from on high:
For the Romney team, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that the campaign never really ended.
In addition to the full-time employees the former Massachusetts governor has at his Boston-based Free & Strong America PAC, the early primary states and Washington are filled with former staffers and supporters who are in regular contact with one another.
Whenever Romney has a major TV appearance or pens an opinion piece, a PAC staffer, Will Ritter, circulates the news to an e-mail list of the former governor’s extended political family.
The Washington-based alumni have a regular monthly luncheon, are working on another reunion-like event around a 2009 candidate later this year and always make sure their former candidate is briefed on the latest political doings.
When Romney does a high-profile Sunday show like he did yesterday, for example, that means that former communications aides such as Matt Rhoades and Kevin Madden will join PAC spokesman and longtime adviser Eric Fehrnstrom to help prepare their old boss, either in person or over the phone. When he’s delivering a speech, as he did earlier this month on national security, other former campaign officials such as media consultants Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens are brought in.
And when the former governor is in Washington for reasons other than a public appearance, an even broader extended network of advisers is often alerted, including such figures as longtime lobbyist and GOP strategist Ron Kaufman.
Romney enjoys an equally strong following in many of the early primary states.
Long time GOP strategist and former McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson puts it more plainly: “Having run before for president puts you in a better place to run again. He doesn’t have to build an infrastructure or recruit a national fundraising team.”
I made the point on my radio show this past Tuesday that if - and that’s a big “if” - Sarah Palin thinks by resigning her office 2 1/2 years before the primaries begin, that she has a better shot at beating Romney, someone should have told her that not only is Romney so far ahead he is almost out of sight, but that the Republican elites are already touting him as “inevitable.” In other words, it’s Romney’s turn.
Who else is there? Gingrich blows hot and cold, trying to decide if his sky high negatives would get in the way of his ambition to be president. Of the governors, Jindal is too young and too green, Pawlenty is as vanilla as they come, Daniels says he doesn’t want it, Huntsman has been co-opted by Obama, and the rest are even more nondescript or unacceptable in one way or another (Do we really want to elect another Bush or another governor from Texas?)
Rising stars? There are a few. Mark Kirk of Illinois who is probably too moderate on social issues for a shot at the national ticket but who is a very telegenic, articulate spokesman for conservative economic issues, has the luxury of running for either governor or senator. But if elected, he would have to abandon his office almost immediately if he wanted to run for president.
Rob Portman, currently running for the senate from Ohio would have the same problem despite the fact that he is a genius on economic matters and has a nice, comfortable personae about him.
I saw Congressman Paul Ryan at CPAC and listened to a speech he made at a think tank roundtable on conservatism. He is definitely an up and comer but Congressman fare poorly as presidential candidates and besides, Ryan voted for TARP which may disqualify any Republican lawmaker who did so.
Then there’s the curious case of Mike Pence who, it is whispered around the Hill, would love to be president some day. He’s a pretty good speaker and is knowledgeable about a host of issues from the budget, to immigration, to health care. We’ll see how he does as Republican Conference Chairman and go from there. He’s only 50 years old so his national political days may be ahead of him.
Finally, we come to Mike Huckabee who, if elected, would be the first president whose named ended in two vowels. I can’t tell you how much I despise Huckaloser except to say I find great enjoyment and satisfaction in creating new and clever endings for his moniker. Huckapooh would destroy the Republican party if nominated so even though he has his own really dumb TV show, I sincerely hope everyone forgets him by the time the primaries roll around.
So not only is Romney next in line, there literally is no one else — unless Sarah Palin challenges him. This, she might do despite the spectacle she has made of herself this last week. When even Republicans - supporters as well as critics - come down on Palin and dismiss her chances in 2012, you have to wonder if she isn’t running for 2016 or beyond.
Maybe she’ll hit the rubber chicken circuit as Reagan did lo these many years ago. Not only will she command astronomical speaking fees, but she will keep her name and face in front of the faithful. Meanwhile, she would be honing her skills, filling in her extensive knowledge gaps, and generally creating a more serious, more complete candidate. We can only wait and see.
In the meantime, Romney continues to quietly do the spadework necessary for a 2012 run. And the GOP should find more uses for this very talented but flawed man. His critiques of Obama’s policies have been very good with no name calling, solid facts and figures, and his speeches are given with an air of authority few Republicans can match.
There is a slight chance that things will be so bad by the fall of 2011 that someone unknown at this point could sweep to the nomination if they are seen as a knight on a white charger. But that scenario is extremely far fetched. It is very unlikely that a new governor or senator elected in 2010 would abandon their office and almost immediately run for president. Hence, the names mentioned above (along with a few others) are it as far as GOP candidates are concerned.
That really leaves a wide open field for Romney. Even at this early, early, stage the race is his to lose. No one else will have the money or organization to challenge him - especially in the early states. If he is to be brought down, it will be by his own missteps, not by any other candidate surpassing him.
Whoever it is, if they’re another Progressive squish, instead of a Federalist, I may vote Libertarian.
Neither the GOP nor the Democratic wing of the Progressive movement has helped since Woodrow Wilson.
Comment by smitty — 7/9/2009 @ 11:06 am
I am curious as to why you eliminated Haley Barbour from your list. He is a true conservative, was a great RNC chairman, has done a good job as governor of MS, is well connected and could establish the necessary infrastructure, I believe. He does have a bit of a draaaawl, though. I would love your thoughts, Rick.
Comment by James Hendricks — 7/9/2009 @ 11:14 am
Sorry, Rick, there’s something off-putting about Romney to me. I’m sure he’s a perfectly nice man with sound instincts and good management skills (all things missing in the current White House occupant) but he’s just too buttoned down and slick for my taste. I don’t want a professional politician this time around. This time I want an authentic American who is plain spoken - and that’s why I’m supporting Sarah Palin who doesn’t do nuance or parsing her words! I’m so sick of that shit you cannot begin to imagine!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 7/9/2009 @ 11:30 am
Politics on a national level were never the intend of the Founding Fathers. They wanted legislators who would do their jobs and then go home to their real lives. When did it become a full time profession? And how corrupt do you have to be to make it your full time profession. H. L. Mencken once opined that a professional politician was a professionally dishonest man! I agree.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 7/9/2009 @ 11:32 am
I like your mention of Paul Ryan. Other than having voted for TARP for whatever crazy reason, he appears to have a “sky-is-the-limit” future to me. If not that the image to two polished Republicans with slick hair would be “too Republican” for some people to bear, I might say he’d be the perfect VP candidate to run alongside Romney, projecting not only a strong present come 2012, but a viable future for conservative values.
Comment by Paul Kroenke — 7/9/2009 @ 11:46 am
“he [Romney] even studied and signed into law a health care system”
Said system is failing miserably.
Comment by Locomotive Breath — 7/9/2009 @ 11:56 am
There is a paradox here. The weaker Obama becomes–and he is fading earlier faster due to pure substance than any president I recall–the more attractive the GOP nomination will become. Whether that disperses the vote so much Romney takes it in a walk, or leads to a darkhorse candidate, remains to be seen. There either will be a Carter vs. Reagan election or a repeat of 2004, wherein the weak incumbent lucked up and drew an even weaker and more ineffective challenger.
One thing seems clear at this point: Obama can be denied a second term if the GOP smartly nominates his opponent. Palin would be a dumb choice. Romney? Probably a very smart choice and likely the next president.
Comment by obamathered — 7/9/2009 @ 12:08 pm
Money and organization wins elections. Usually they go hand in hand, and Romney has both.
However, I think Palin has the ability to exceed Romney’s campaign contributions, once she declares and starts campaigning. But all is lost if she doesn’t start organizing… thus her gubinatorial resignation.
I think that Romney would be the stronger candidate, so I hope she sits the next one out. Fat chance.
Comment by lionheart — 7/9/2009 @ 12:10 pm
Interesting and instructive that Romney’s religion was not mentioned.
Romney would run to win and not run to merely run, so the question should be asked:
Was America ready for an African-American as president? Yes. Is America ready for a Mormon as president. I really don’t know.
Comment by shaun — 7/9/2009 @ 12:24 pm
I lean to the left, but I could see myself voting for Romney. I voted Obama, but if he can’t pull the economy up by 2012, then I’m going to look to the other side of the aisle for a president. Of all the names floated so far on the GOP side, only Romney seems to have the economic street cred.
Comment by James H — 7/9/2009 @ 12:42 pm
It will be a cold day in evangelical hell before a Mormon gets elected president in the US.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/9/2009 @ 12:42 pm
Romney has the money and the organization, but Palin has the votes. Votes outrank money and organization. Palin is a celebrity. We know about America and celebrity. Pundits say she has a lot of studying to do. Like how to travel overseas and apologize for America. How to weaken defense in the face of North Korea and Iran. How to promote group identity and racial grievance. How to spend our way out of debt. How to debase our currency and ignite inflation. How to destroy constitutional democracy the way Ivy League lawyers know how to do. How to foster a culture of death. And a lot of other things.
No. On second thought she better not do too much studying. I think we need her just the way she is. The question is though, does she need us. If not, we will give it a go with another rich white man. We know how that will turn out.
Comment by Mike — 7/9/2009 @ 12:57 pm
It is the Republican Party elites that have gotten us into this disturbing situation in the first place. Their brilliant candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives are the spineless wimps that allowed a Democratic minority to ride roughshod over them. They wanted to be LIKED - when instead they should have aimed to be respected. When you stand up to a bully, he will run away and he usually won’t start up with you in the future. This the Republicans in Congress should have done and didn’t do. So forgive me if I’m not impressed with the eminence grise of the Republican Party who are so in love with Mitt Romney! He’s a grey little manager-type! Won’t excite or stimulate the base - which Sarah Palin will do. I’m speaking from experience with these tiny-minded little drones back when I was young and energetic instead of old and crabby as I am now.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 7/9/2009 @ 1:06 pm
You are so right about Romney……keep an eye on Perry of TX and BArbour of MS for VP……
Comment by Silvio — 7/9/2009 @ 1:52 pm
Chuck:
“It will be a cold day in evangelical hell before a Mormon gets elected president in the US.”
I heard the same about a mixed-raced president this time last year. My guess is that much would be “forgiven” to hustle Obama out of office in 2012, the least of which would be Romney’s Mormonism. On the other hand, I agree with the above poster that the field may be very crowded if Obama continues to unravel due to his profligate spending orgies and economic recklessness, so it may be premature to guess who the GOP nominee will be. The weaker the president is at that time, unless he recovers, the more people will want to be his opponent.
Comment by jackson1234 — 7/9/2009 @ 1:55 pm
jackson1234,
Mormonism is Christianity’s version of Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard = Joseph Smith. I’d love to hear Romney’s response when asked about the magical golden tablets, or the magical glasses needed to read the magical golden tablets.
Again, the US will never ever elect a Mormon to the presidency. The evangelicals won’t allow it.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/9/2009 @ 2:25 pm
Another prediction. Obama WILL have a primary opponent if his numbers are below 50 in late 2011. I would keep a close eye on Hillary as SOS the next year or so.
Comment by obamathered — 7/9/2009 @ 2:36 pm
If the GOP had been able to unshackle itself from this mentality, McCain would have been the nominee in 2000 and Romney would have been the contender last year. This is not so much a political problem as it is a mental problem within the party. Still, Romney’s executive experince in both the private and public sectors would be tremendous assets in running against someone who should never have been elected animal control officer, much less President.
Whoever the candidate ends up being, they’ll need to be long on substance and short on style. At the very least, we need a capable administrator to act as chief executive, not another primadonna celebrity fabricated out of whole cloth by media sycophants.
Comment by Sirius — 7/9/2009 @ 2:52 pm
I voted for Obama but if he doesn’t pull us out of this recession I will vote for Romney, because he is a number cruncher with economics. I too wonder if the evangelicals will vote for a Mormon. Palin is toast, a lightweight.
Comment by Joe — 7/9/2009 @ 4:45 pm
Chuck Tuscon (#10 & #15 above) said “It will be a cold day in evangelical hell before a Mormon gets elected president in the US.”
We are already on the road to hell — economic hell. If the Senate passes Cap and Trade, if we get single-payer health care, if liberal theories continue to dictate economic policy, if high-principled Republicans continue to refuse to agree amongst themselves on divisive issues, and if voters continue to fixate on irrelevant details such as Romney’s faith — we will arrive in hell before we know it. And once there, we will stay until we get our act together.
It’s way too early to sift through candidates for 2012. I think conservatives would be better served focusing on unifying ideas and principles than personalities at this point
Comment by Doug King — 7/9/2009 @ 8:11 pm
Nevermind the Evangelicals, millions of main stream Christians won’t vote for a Mormon. I’m sorry but I don’t want a man who believes he’s going to be a god someday have his finger on the nuclear button.
Comment by dymphna — 7/9/2009 @ 8:23 pm
Mormonism is Christianity’s version of Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard = Joseph Smith. I’d love to hear Romney’s response when asked about the magical golden tablets, or the magical glasses needed to read the magical golden tablets.
Some one has been watching too much South Park ? But I digress.
Chuck Tucson, I have been a regular visitor to this website and I know that you are a self identified moderate or independent or what ever.
THAT being the case, why would YOU love to hear Romney defend his own Mormon faith ? I thought moderates like you treated a person’s faith to be their own private business and no body else’s. I further thought that moderates like you HATED the right for mixing religion and politics.
But you now would “love to hear” Romney defend his faith ? Why is that ? What exactly is the meaning of there is no religious test to public office ?
Were all these views sincerely held or do they just change conveniently when there is a Republican candidate to bash around ?
By the way, there has been a Mormon Senate Majority Leader for the last 30 months - and no, the “evangelicals” -people that you like to paint with such a broad brush, have not exactly killed themselves.
You know that the American electorate is FU***ED up when self professed moderates so gleefully hope to corner a man into defending his own faith.
Sigh.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/9/2009 @ 8:29 pm
“Nevermind the Evangelicals, millions of main stream Christians won’t vote for a Mormon. I’m sorry but I don’t want a man who believes he’s going to be a god someday have his finger on the nuclear button.
Wow, i am sorry but there seems to be a religious test in the minds of the citizens of this country, if not in the Constitution.
No consideration for ANY of Romney’s strengths ?? None ? Not even if he could prove to be an efficient leader ? No?
For all the reasons any one could give not to vote for Romney, fear of him having his hands on the nuclear button must easily rank as the most egregiously dumbest one.
Btw, I am no fan of Romney’s flip flop on abortion and i am surprised that i am backing him - i guess an open show of religious intolerance can do that.
Mormons - the favorite whipping boys of all Christians who didnt bother to understand Christianity well enough.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/9/2009 @ 8:35 pm
[...] mystery gets partially unraveled in my Interview with Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House and Jazz Shaw of The Moderate [...]
Pingback by How Do Moderates Feel? « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier — 7/9/2009 @ 9:23 pm
[...] mystery gets partially unraveled in my Interview with Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House and Jazz Shaw of The Moderate [...]
Pingback by How Do Moderates Feel? « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier — 7/9/2009 @ 9:23 pm
Take a deep breathe .. now hold it.
Comment by Neo — 7/9/2009 @ 10:33 pm
For some reason, that line put a smile on my face! Why wouldn’t Double-E’s in our highest office work?
Not so sure about this; remember that the Huckster was the about only GOP primary candidate from 2008 that seemed comfortable in his own skin. (Not that the Democratic offerings were much more human!) Sure I didn’t care much for his political views or his worldly ignorance, but he certainly came across very well as a likable guy that the average voter would want to share a beer with. (And he knows this very well!) He won’t be forgotten in 2012.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 7/9/2009 @ 10:44 pm
Is this like fantasy baseball. C’mon folks we’ve go another 3 years. George Bush senior was a “shoe in” after 1st Gulf war. It all changed so fast. Its not worth the speculation.
Comment by c3 — 7/9/2009 @ 10:56 pm
I liked Romney’s credentials before I heard him speak. Snore. Maybe he could be the next McNamara. What does he stand for anyway?
Comment by chuck — 7/9/2009 @ 11:35 pm
Nagarajan Sivakumar said:
I dunno, I guess it’s just funny listening to people trying to rationalize absurdity.
Meh. Listening to the preachy preach as it careens off the morality cliff into someone elses wifes pants is actually sort of entertaining at times.
No, they change conveniently when there is a Republican candidate to bash around.
Harry is a douche from a predominately Mormon state. Also, the people didn’t make him Majority Leader, the senate did that.
All I’m saying is that people who believe that Joseph Smith was given magical golden tablets and magical glasses to read (and interpret) them with by an angel of the lord out in the woods on a hill, are brainwashed idiots who should never, ever, be allowed to run the most powerful country on earth.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/10/2009 @ 12:39 am
Mark Kirk a possibility for the Republican nomination? I may be mistaken but didn’t he vote for the Cap and Trade bill in the House?
I understand we have to have a big tent but it would be hard for me and many others to find any enthusiasm for anyone who voted for that monstrosity. If, indeed, he voted for it he is either a kook or has very elastic principles either of which would make him a bit of a risk as President.
Comment by Harry O — 7/10/2009 @ 1:39 am
Be careful with Romney, I voted for him when he ran for Governor in MA because we had a weak field of candidates (still do) but by the time he was halfway through his term he was out of state running for Pres. His biggest problem, though he may know Economics, is that he tends to change his positions very quickly and the rationales he gives tend to be specious. The health care system you tout he lead, it was mostly done within the Legislature, he did little with it and the signing he left to his Lt. Gov so she’d have a promo piece on the news while she was running for his job.
Comment by Boy 0 — 7/10/2009 @ 3:20 am
In 2005, Kerry and Clinton were the odds on favoites to fight it out for the 2008 nomination. Even as late as the early 2007, Clinton was far and away the front runner. Obama was back in the field.
The GOP needs to solidify behind a leader, not just another “It’s his turn to try on the mantle” kind of canidadate ala McCain and Dole. I believe the 2010 midterms will sort out a lot of the drama regarding the issues that will step up to the fore for 2012. If the economy is still the driving factor in 2010, then Romney may very well be the front man the GOP needs.
Comment by SShiell — 7/10/2009 @ 6:40 am
Chuck Tuscon…what a waste of keystrokes and bandwidth.
Comment by Cordeiro — 7/10/2009 @ 7:36 am
Romney’s been on too many sides of important issues: abortion, homosexual unions.
Besides, the msm will never allow a Mormon president.
Not gonna happen…if Mitt is the nominee, we get four more years of Barry.
Comment by Increase Mather — 7/10/2009 @ 8:28 am
@ Increase Mather
We’ll probably get 4 more years of BO, regardless of who runs.
And that’s even taking into account the bad economy. I just don’t see the BO “spell” breaking before then.
Palin would give BO a good run, but probably still lose. I think Romney will be our candidate (cuz’ Palin won’t run), but don’t see him winning more than a few states.
Sorry, that’s just how I see it.
Comment by connertown — 7/10/2009 @ 10:09 am
“All I’m saying is that people who believe that Joseph Smith was given magical golden tablets and magical glasses to read (and interpret) them with by an angel of the lord out in the woods on a hill, are brainwashed idiots who should never, ever, be allowed to run the most powerful country on earth.”
And instead you supported a person who sat in the aisle of a church where the Minister treated his parishoners with statements like “Goddamn America” and Obama agreed with him to the tune of $27,000 in 2007 in tithes to that church. True, he later left the church stating he never heard such statements from the Minister. But if that were true, his book “The Audacity of Hope” would never have been written because the title comes from the Minister’s very same sermon where he damns America and Obama quotes from that very sermon.
Chuck Tuscon…what a waste of breath.
Comment by SShiell — 7/10/2009 @ 11:39 am
Having brought up the religion “issue” in the first place, let me jump back in:
I do not believe that Romney’s faith should be an issue but as other commenters have noted, it certainly will be.
Comment by shaun — 7/10/2009 @ 12:14 pm
As a Christian, a practicing Mormon, as well as a political independent, I am often amazed at how naïve and judgmental some people seem to be about my faith and its relation to politics. Another thing I have seen is a pattern of persons claiming to know what Mormons believe, clearly before an honest effort has been made to find out what our beliefs really are – presenting some sensationalized distorted fragment of our beliefs, and never really addressing why a reasonable intelligent person could actually be an adherent. The same people who seem to have no problem believing in Old Testament miracles such as Moses parting the Red Sea, the delivery of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego from the fiery furnace; New Testament miracles of Jesus including his virgin birth, walking on the water, feeding the 5000; and post-crucifixion miracles of Jesus’ followers including Peter healing a lame man, and multiple records of angelic appearances – seem to choke when it comes to believing there could be any modern day communication of God to man – and certainly nothing miraculous, or systematic. Angelic visits to Joseph Smith seem over the top, although they might have been okay if they had occurred 2000 years ago – as that seems to be the time (in the minds of some) that God stopped his long standing pattern of being interested enough in mankind to give some direction. Somehow if you believe in old miracles instead of new ones that makes one more acceptable – even if this religion actually seems to benefit its members in a myriad of ways, and has millions of members. There are Mormon governors, representatives, and senators, both Republican and Democrat who seem to have served quite well in the aggregate. I don’t know if we will ever have a Mormon President, but PLEASE take the time to learn about us FROM us before you tell someone else what we’re about. Thanks!
Comment by Cheen — 7/10/2009 @ 1:35 pm
Sshiell said:
No I didn’t.
Cordiero said:
I think I’ll head over to your blog to see what awesome really looks like.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/10/2009 @ 2:01 pm
shorter Cheen: You think Mormons are crazy? What about the folks who believe what’s in the Bible?
The problem with that argument is that it IS the folks who believe what’s in the Bible who think Mormons are crazy (or worse).
Comment by HyperIon — 7/10/2009 @ 2:08 pm
@chuck tuscon:
“All I’m saying is that people who believe that Joseph Smith was given magical golden tablets and magical glasses to read (and interpret) them with by an angel of the lord out in the woods on a hill, are brainwashed idiots who should never, ever, be allowed to run the most powerful country on earth.”
A opposed to any other religious faith, which makes total and complete logical sense?
I agree that Mormonism makes me giggle, but how is it any sillier than any other faith? You think America is going to vote for an Athiest? Given we haven’t yet, why start now?
p.s.: If you asked me 3 years ago if a Mormon could get elected, I would have said no way. Of course, I’d have said the same thing about a black man . . . so I guess things change.
Got one for ya - how about a Carpenter’s son who says he’s the son of God, died a traitor’s death, and his followers claim the guy just got up after three days and walked out of his tomb like nothing happened.
How much sillier is that than the Mormons?
ed.
Comment by busboy33 — 7/10/2009 @ 2:47 pm
busboy33 said:
Meh. None of them make total and complete logical sense. I was just focusing on Mormonism.
You’re right though, unfortunately, America will not be voting for an atheist anytime soon either.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/10/2009 @ 3:59 pm
I’m certainly NOT saying that people who believe in the Bible are crazy; any faith tradition includes some belief in events that are supernatural. I respect the fact that there is great good in all major faith traditions. I am saying, “Don’t call what I believe irrational, when you have your own set of beliefs that require faith to accept.”
I also maintain that if you believe in the Bible, you must also accept that there were miracles and revelations from God to man that were documented and that occurred over many millenia. These revelations formed the basis for the Bible — I believe the Bible (as far as translators have been faithful to the original), but I’d certainly like to think the “Author” can still communicate to us. Further, that others who share those beliefs shouldn’t be automatically marginalized in political life. I have certainly voted for many individuals over my lifetime who did not share some of my beliefs, but I believed shared my values and ideas of what constitutes good government.
From a public standpoint, it shouldn’t be so much about what Mormons believe (even though I think our doctrines are very sensible and most Mormons are more than eager to share if you ask), but about the nature of the lives and character of those who live their faith as best they can. (In other words, what they do.) Mormons aren’t necessarily any more perfect than anyone else, but they are encouraged to be good citizens, good neighbors, to help the less fortunate, give Christian service, and participate in government, etc.
Anyway, I’m not sure if my comments are actually changing anyone’s attitude toward Mormons, but I do feel like we live under a lot of undeserved stereotypes and superficial assessments.
Thanks again.
Comment by Cheen — 7/10/2009 @ 4:09 pm
Boy do I ever agree with you about Huckabee. I remember seeing a family photo of his back during the primaries. It was Huckabee, his wife, and two (or maybe three) adult sons, and dad and the grown sons had matching striped hillbilly shirts on! The boys (men?) were fat and vacuous, like their brains had been fried by too many Cheetos and too much internet porn. It had a real “Yup, I married my sister and these here are our worthless kids” feel to it. Positively creepy. I have this sense that something is just not right about that man and his family. Anyhoo…I could vote for Romney, but since I believe Hillary will be Obama’s running mate in ‘12, I think Romney’s VP choice is going to be really important. Hillary is definitely being groomed (by way of an utterly inconsequential SoS stint) to be Obama’s number 2 in 2012, so Romney will need someone who can go up against her in voters’ minds. Who will that be?
Comment by Anon — 7/10/2009 @ 4:27 pm
Anon #45, to answer your question. Keep an eye on Meg Whitman. She’s loyal to Romney (managed his campaign), will most likely be the next Gov. of California, has busniess smarts (former Ebay CEO), she’s rich (even richer than Mitt!), and the icing on the cake…she’s a SHE. Take that Hillary.
Comment by Roymondo — 7/10/2009 @ 5:22 pm
“All I’m saying is that people who believe that Joseph Smith was given magical golden tablets and magical glasses to read (and interpret) them with by an angel of the lord out in the woods on a hill, are brainwashed idiots who should never, ever, be allowed to run the most powerful country on earth.”
All I’m saying is Chuck Tucson’s “moderate” mask just slipped to reveal an ugliness that I never suspected of coming face to face on this site.
Btw, Chuck you didnt answer Rick’s provocative question about Jesus and the foundations of Christianity. Why is it any different/better than Mormonism ?
And how is it that you supported Barack Obama for President after knowing the church he went to ?
Chuck Tucson - Just another demagogue dressed in the “moderates” clothing - Meh this, you low life.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/10/2009 @ 8:29 pm
@Cheen,
I sadly have agree with your statement. It would be wonderful if the GOP primary voters could vote for or against Romney without his faith coming into play, but 2012 is perhaps too soon for that to happen.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 7/10/2009 @ 9:17 pm
Moderate doesn’t really mean much. I’m an independent. A bit melodramatic of you there with that ugliness thing.
I did answer it. It’s just as absurd.
Having the same opinion on certain issues does not equal support. I voted for him because Republicans left me no choice.
I destroy you every time we do this. Blue LED ring any bells? Chin up Nagarajan, I’m sure you’re just as amazing in real life.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/10/2009 @ 10:21 pm
Some of you must be kidding about Barbour. First, he was a professional lobbyist so the ads right themselves. And Second, nobody north of the Tennessee is voting for the picture in the dictionary for “good ole’ boy”. He would grab every state in the south, and probably lose everything else.
Comment by Derrick — 7/11/2009 @ 1:03 am
Saturday morning links…
Now they’re leaning towards a surtax - aka a tax on a tax
Marginal Rev uses the E Word to describe the health care negotiations in DC
What’s a bigger deal? Pols with romantic indiscretions or pols with $ corruption?
More good recent mil photos fro…
Trackback by Maggie's Farm — 7/11/2009 @ 4:30 am
Romney has too much Massachusetts politics in him for me to vote for hom. Run Sarah run.
Comment by DavidD — 7/11/2009 @ 7:30 am
Things that are still true about Romney:
1. “my good friend, Ted Kennedy.”
2. Was pro-abortion until he decided to run for President.
3. Promised bailouts for the American auto industry in Michigan.
4. He still comes across as the Stepford Republican.
Comment by OCBill — 7/11/2009 @ 9:47 am
I left out:
5. RomneyCare in Massachsuetts.
Comment by OCBill — 7/11/2009 @ 9:48 am
A lot of all this depends on the economy and believe it or not whoever is in charge has only limited influence. So nobody really knows how it is going to look in 2010, 2012. That said, I would go with Derrick on Barbour. Palin has a vocal, dedicated following but IMHO she doesn’t have it to be president. Please people, listen to her statement last week (WTF???). So I really think the nomination is Romney’s to loose (but that doesn’t count for that much in politics).
Comment by funny man — 7/11/2009 @ 12:07 pm
“It is the Republican Party elites that have gotten us into this disturbing situation in the first place. Their brilliant candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives are the spineless wimps that allowed a Democratic minority to ride roughshod over them. They wanted to be LIKED - when instead they should have aimed to be respected. When you stand up to a bully, he will run away and he usually won’t start up with you in the future. This the Republicans in Congress should have done and didn’t do. So forgive me if I’m not impressed with the eminence grise of the Republican Party who are so in love with Mitt Romney! He’s a grey little manager-type! Won’t excite or stimulate the base - which Sarah Palin will do. I’m speaking from experience with these tiny-minded little drones back when I was young and energetic instead of old and crabby as I am now.”
Bingo, Gayle. The likes of this blog, and the rest of the Republican functionaries, talking heads, pundits, and assorted dreck JUST DON’T GET IT. I can absolutely guarantee you that Sarah Palin, tomorrow, without any preparation, money, or plans, would draw bigger crowds on the stump, and more Republican votes at the polls than Romney or whoever the designated “I’m next” drone the RNC tries to foist on the party. They spend their time writing their oh-so-sophisticated drivel for the consumption of the hoi polloi, smug in their superiority, aghast that this backwoods hillbilly woman can excite the party like no one since Reagan. Now I realize I’m supposed to listen to my betters, but I would vote for her before any of the worn out retreads listed in this commentary. If nothing else, just to watch their heads explode.
Comment by Bob C — 7/11/2009 @ 4:45 pm
Who’d have thought there were enough Petanist Republicans to make Rommney a viable candidate. After McCain somehow I doubt that Rommney will be attractive to all but the suicidal and demented.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 7/11/2009 @ 10:23 pm
Pawlenty is as vanilla as they come
While certainly no fan of Pawlenty, myself: that’s a particularly snort-worthy rationalization, coming from anyone touting Mitt “Insert Personality Here” Romney.
Comment by kent18 — 7/12/2009 @ 1:52 am
“Harry is a douche from a predominately Mormon state.”
Chuck evidently thinks “predominately” means “6%”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/politics/18repubs.html
Comment by jack — 7/12/2009 @ 11:56 am
Chuck,
Moderate doesn’t really mean much. I’m an independent. A bit melodramatic of you there with that ugliness thing.
No, it’s not - you showed your ugly intolerant side for every one to see - nice trying to say it is “melodramatic”.
I did answer it. It’s just as absurd.
Yeah right ! Christanity is just as absurd ! And yet every one of your 44 Presidents seems to be a Christian. And the first time a Mormon becomes President, you are suddennly alarmed
Douchebag.
Having the same opinion on certain issues does not equal support. I voted for him because Republicans left me no choice.
Yeah, when you are ignorant enough, you would not know that there are libertarians- but you wouldnt agree with libertarians because you wouldnt know the first thing about economic freedom and individual freedom.
You could have voted Libertarian - instead you voted for one statist party and one statist candidate.
I destroy you every time we do this. Blue LED ring any bells? Chin up Nagarajan, I’m sure you’re just as amazing in real life.
Wow, Keyboard warrior ! You destroy me every time we have these arguments…. you are sooooo awesome dude !!!
If you want to know how amazing i am in real life, why dont you let me know who you are ? My e-mail address is
nagarajan.sivakumar@gmail.com
We will see who can chin up.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/12/2009 @ 12:42 pm
I’ve been waiting to see what people can do. So far, I like what I have seen from Romney, but there hasn’t been enough. He’s put out thoughtful criticism of President Obama’s policies that has substance and is backed up by facts. There needs to be more of it. There’s a lot to like about her, but I haven’t seen very much of substance from Governor Palin yet. Maybe that will be coming. There was one short, very general opinion on energy in the WSJ, but so far that’s all I have seen.
It’s too early to worry about the personalities. Policies first, then we can worry about the candidate.
Comment by Mark_0454 — 7/12/2009 @ 3:44 pm
Nagarajan said:
Are you challenging me to a chin up duel?
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/12/2009 @ 4:00 pm
People!
civilized!!
Comment by funny man — 7/12/2009 @ 4:05 pm
Are you challenging me to a chin up duel?
Chuck, Why do you keep talking ?
I’ve already sent you my e-mail address- the main point of that being to take this offline.
And YOU STILL CANT GET A FRICKING CLUE. I know that you are some where between middle aged and down right old, but i am now discovering two more important aspects about you.
Your dumbness and your bigotry. Not a good combination, and you are not too good at hiding either of it.
Not to mention your ” Are you challenging me to a chinup duel” ? threat that scares the hell out of me.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/12/2009 @ 4:31 pm
funny man,
I apologize for my not so civil behavior - i dont take religious intolerance well, and it probably set off some anger in me to see the way Chuck Tucson went about bashing Mormons.
Faith is a deeply personal thing - to use it as a cudgel to beat people up is bigotry - and it is scary how casual Chuck is when being so downright bigoted.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/12/2009 @ 4:40 pm
Nagarajan,
Faith has a duality. While deeply personal, it’s also thrust into the public forum continuously. It would be awesome if it was only deeply personal. It’s very public, and always will be.
I don’t see how asking someone who claims to believe something, to openly admit to that belief is beating them up. I just wanted to know if Romney really believes that an angel gave magical gold tablets and magical glasses to Joseph Smith.
Furthermore, if he does actually believe that, then that’s really great for him. I just don’t want someone who believes that, running my country. Why? Because it’s absolute and complete nonsense. Someone who can fall for that, is someone who can probably fall for anything.
Now, if he’s like Bush, and just pandering to his religious base because they have very lucrative business ties and much money to be had, then more power to him. At least he’s being politically savvy and honest with himself.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/12/2009 @ 5:25 pm
Why don’t we worry about what Romney thinks of the economy and global warming and leave his religion out of it?
Comment by Mark_0454 — 7/12/2009 @ 5:38 pm
I don’t see how asking someone who claims to believe something, to openly admit to that belief is beating them up. I just wanted to know if Romney really believes that an angel gave magical gold tablets and magical glasses to Joseph Smith.
Chuck, Stop being disingenous - when was the last time, you or any one else was eager to question Obama on whether he believed if Jesus actually was born to a Virgin ? Or if he rose from the dead? Or if he was tempted by Satan thrice while roaming in the wilderness ?
How many people were interested in knowing if JFK actually believed in the Holiness of the Virgin Mar?
Some how, you are able to live with all the Christian Presidents that believe in all this OR may profess to belive in all this, without questioning them - but you are concerned about Mitt Romney’s beliefs in what Joseph Smith did or did not get ?
What’s next ? Do you want to know if he wears the undergarments the Mormon faith prescribes to men ?
Furthermore, if he does actually believe that, then that’s really great for him. I just don’t want someone who believes that, running my country. Why? Because it’s absolute and complete nonsense. Someone who can fall for that, is someone who can probably fall for anything.
Yeah, many of the 43 Presidents believe that Jesus was born to a Virgin and that he rose from the dead - so, hundreds of millions of your countrymen and women have “fallen for that” and voted these men into office.
So are the hundreds of thousands of people - rational people- like doctors, lawyers, scientists and people from all walks of life.
Its called FAITH - and no, no one needs to publically defend it - if you think people of faith are DUMB to fall for all that hooey, then you wouldnt vote for any politician. Heck, you are the guy who voted for Obama. And you take a, pardon the pun “holier than thou” attitude ?
What is it about the Mormon faith that invites more scrutiny than the Christian faith ?
Now, if he’s like Bush, and just pandering to his religious base because they have very lucrative business ties and much money to be had, then more power to him. At least he’s being politically savvy and honest with himself
As far as you are concerned, its IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to genuinely have faith - nothing can be done to correct it, as you seem to know Bush on such a personal level that lesser mortals like us dont - Lucrative business ties ?? Sorry, but his family does have ties to oil tycoons - what does this have to do with Christians ?
67 Million Americans kept their eyes widely shut last Novemberabout a man who went to a hate mongering church for 25 years and picked the title of his most famous work from a hate mongering race hustling pastor.
Did you ever want to know if Obama was genuine about his faith or was using it as a political tool to advance his career in the black community ?
I am sure you appreciated his “political savvy” - and yet when it comes to Romney, you are sooooo concerned if he really wears Mormon undies.
Your dishonesty speaks for itself.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/12/2009 @ 5:50 pm
Why don’t we worry about what Romney thinks of the economy and global warming and leave his religion out of it?
C’mon Mark - if Romney is a Mormon who believes that gold tablets were handed over to Joseph Smith, then he may as well believe “anything” as Chuck likes to put it.
See, if you are a person of faith, it must directly imply that you have to be an irrational person automatically.
Also,please dont ask how such men of faith from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to Reagan lead their country during trying times - it was sheer luck inspite of their irrational belief in their faiths.
Case closed.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/12/2009 @ 6:03 pm
Well, something’s certainly got Nagarajan all fired up.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/12/2009 @ 7:50 pm
Chuck,
You are quite the genius who seems to have it all figured out.
Being a bigot is your freedom - and may be you just want to openly express your bigotry.
As they say, the known devil is always better than the unknown devil.
Thanks for showing who you are.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 7/12/2009 @ 8:31 pm
I’d rather you all stop talking about other peoples faith or the lack thereof and start reading ‘The Idiot’ or other works of Dostoevsky. The line between good and bad always goes straight to your heart but how do you overcome your weaknesses? That is the real question behind all faiths.
Comment by funny man — 7/12/2009 @ 8:59 pm
Oh! If we’re recommending books, I go with: “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan”
Caution, this book might cause you to adjust your worldview slightly.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/12/2009 @ 10:01 pm
“I don’t see how asking someone who claims to believe something, to openly admit to that belief is beating them up. I just wanted to know if Romney really believes that an angel gave magical gold tablets and magical glasses to Joseph Smith.”
The above quote is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier about superficial analyses of Mormonism. Of course Romney believes in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, just as he believes Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world; but the question as posed is a total setup, filled with inherent bias. The fact that Joseph Smith obtained an ancient record and used spiritually mediated means to translate it, in a very sacred manner, is portrayed like it was some sort of magic side show, rather than the Divine means employed to bring forth additional scripture, the Book of Mormon.
The loaded question is just as absurd as asking, “What do you think about that bogus belief system called Christianity and that unbelieveable claim that Christ was actually resurrected?”
The idea that a prophet could receive revelation through a seer stone is no more techologically unbelieveable than your receiving a text message on your cell phone, or God hearing your prayers at dinner time. It is just new to you, so you are curious. However, being curious does not make you informed.
If you want to comment on Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, or how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints got started, or how reasonable logical people can believe in it, please take the time to read the Book of Mormon first and do YOUR homework. The answers are all there on mormon.org or lds.org. I think they will even send you a free Book of Mormon if you ask. The proof of the Book of Mormon is in the reading and personal experiencing of the book, not in seeing the gold plates. Millions of people have read the book, but obviously not everyone. Also, ask yourself, as you read it, if a farm boy with a 3rd or 4th year of formal education could have produced this from his imagination in a few weeks time.
Whether you love or hate Romney, agree or disagree with his politics, he is stronger and better for his Christian Mormon beliefs. I’d say the same for Harry Reid or any other Mormon who is trying to live his/her religion.
Comment by Cheen — 7/13/2009 @ 11:16 am
No, actually, it is infinitely more technologically unbelievable. That’s the point. It is - literally - impossible. Text messages don’t rely on faith.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 7/13/2009 @ 12:28 pm
“No, actually, it is infinitely more technologically unbelievable. That’s the point. It is - literally - impossible. Text messages don’t rely on faith.”
I would say that you actually do exercise a measure of faith most every time you take an action. i.e. You put your keys in the ignition, having faith the engine will start; you put your credit card number into Pay Pal and have faith your package will arrive in the mail, etc. You make a call or send a text on a cell phone using technology that 99.9% of the users don’t fully understand — but you expect(have faith)it will work.
You wonder how an angel could appear, how a prayer could be heard, or how God could do something miraculous because you don’t understand or can’t physically see the mechanisms and the means by which these things are done — and then you insist they don’t exist because you can’t see them with your finite mind or your physical eyes.
The idea of talking into a cell phone and being instaneously heard on the other side of the world or having a man land on the moon has also been considered preposterous or absurd by some in the past. Why can’t God use the matter of the universe to communicate by mechanisms that we don’t fully know about yet? When you use the word “impossible”, you suddenly put yourself in a position of knowing it all — when the universe dictates a more humble approach might be a more appropriate way to go.
True faith is not just believing in anything, but in things that are true. You actually have faith in a lot of things, though you may not use the word “faith” to describe this. Experience with spiritual things increases faith in God and His reality. Mormons I know love truth and seek it not only in personal religious experience, but in all branches of science and the arts and every other worthy endeavor. I see my faith as an asset to my search for truth wherever it exists.
Comment by Cheen — 7/13/2009 @ 1:16 pm
Cheen,
“The proof of the Book of Mormon is in the reading and personal experiencing of the book, not in seeing the gold plates”.
That is no proof because people of every other faith will tell you the same thing, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Mormon. Are you saying the others a wrong?
Comment by funny man — 7/13/2009 @ 1:19 pm
Thanks for asking; I believe that there is much truth and good and even a Divine element in all the major world religions and philosophies, and respect the right of others to adopt the beliefs they want. There are a lot of universals out there — like the “Golden Rule” for example - that help us to deal with others who see the world differently.
Even though I may have specific disagreements with some of the beliefs or doctrines or practices of others, the idea of free will underlies all this. (You can reference the “Articles of Faith” penned by Joseph Smith on one of the websites I referred to earlier to get a brief overview of Mormon beliefs.) I believe all people are children of God, and so in a very real sense, you and every other person on earth are relatives of mine — sometimes I like that and sometimes I’m not so sure!
For example, I am eternally indebted to the wonderful Muslim MD that replaced my wife’s cornea and restored her blindness to sight. My white nephew and his wife adopted two black children from Africa; they are loved and accepted as much as their two natural children. It underscores the fact that we all have lots in common despite our differences.
My faith “works for me” and for my family. I think my faith can add something to whatever beliefs and truth others may have, but I don’t think it does any good to go around with the attitude of “holier than thou” with respect to sharing what I have.
I also don’t think one can “argue” or convince others about faith matters — people have to “prove” it to themselves, or experience it for themselves. Since my faith benefits me, naturally I want to share it with you. While I may think my faith is better or more complete than other faiths I do not think or believe I am better than you. Personal religious experience is just that — something that you experience personally. Furthermore, I don’t think God wants to tell us everything — many things in life are left for us to discover, work through, and implement — for our own growth and development.
Again, I would love it if those curious about Mormons would take the time to study it more. Take an open-minded trip through the Book of Mormon, and see how it changes the way you think and feel about life and the others around you. Attend a church service or nose around the church’s websites. I really think the more familiar you get with “Mormonism,” the less these superficial and fragmented stereotypes will pass as anything substantial.
Again, thanks for listening. I notice my posts are longer than most. I think it is just my personality.
Comment by Cheen — 7/13/2009 @ 2:55 pm
I am a lifelong practicing Catholic who actually spent a few months in the convent after high school, so I think my knowledge of Catholicism is fairly comprehensive. I would not hesitate to vote for Romney on the basis of his Mormon faith, any more than I would have avoided voting for our future one-termer Obama because he was a mixed race Chicago pol. I didn’t vote for Obama because he has no substance, no intelligence, no historical knowledge and no class. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the color of his skin. I’m loathe to consider voting for anyone from Chicago. It’s has a toxic political climate in my opinion!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 7/14/2009 @ 10:56 am
Gayle,
I oppose Obama’s policies but to say he has no intelligence, no class etc is just wishful thinking on your part. I remember you strongly supporting Palin, I guess great historical knowledge and intelligence there.
Comment by funny man — 7/14/2009 @ 12:50 pm