I think it is fair to say that Romney is not someone who is nothing but a political opportunist who will say anything to get elected. I have absolutely no doubt at all that Romney is a conservative and would lead this nation accordingly.

Buy Danish on July 13, 2007 at 4:52 PM

I don’t know if it makes sense to say that George Bush was an “opportunist” either. He’s what George Will called “personally conservative:” he goes to church a lot, and lives a clean life. His heart is in the right place, and on MOST issues his stand is a conservative one. But he’ll occasionally take stance – every bit as passionate – that utterly boggle the mind.

George Bush may have spent much of his life in Texas, but he ain’t no Texan. His family is rooted in Conecticut. He is in every way the perfect model of the New England “Rockefeller Republican.” He said what needed to be said during the Primary, but then went right back to his roots when he was back in his element – among Democrats who were always ready to help him “compromise.”

If there’s a difference between Bush and Giuliani and Romney, I sure don’t see it. And 8 years of that crap is just about all I can handle.

I am really at a loss to understand how one can be so pro- Fred! and yet so anti-Mitt at the same time.

Because one has a fairly consistant conservative record and the other doesn’t. It’s not that hard to understand.
Hollowpoint on July 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

There are plenty of people out there who think Mitt is a great candidate – and more power to them. But I haven’t seen much of that around here. All I hear are a handful of extremely virulent anti-Fred fanatics who – when pressed – will occassionally try to claim that there are other Republican candidates who don’t turn their stomaches. But I’m not buying it.

It’s been pointed out already that one of our greatest Conservatives, Ronald Reagan, did not have a “consistent conservative record” if you go way back to the beginning.

Neither did “neo-cons” like David Horowitz, who are inarguably staunch and reliable conservatives now.

If you want to pick at actions that make one question a candidates conservative creds, I don’t think that supporting McCain-Feingold, which Fred did, was very conservative either – and that is an understatement.

What is important is whether or not Romney is a conservative now, and whether his change of heart on abortion (for example) is sincere and reasonable.

I think it is fair to say that Romney is not someone who is nothing but a political opportunist who will say anything to get elected. I have absolutely no doubt at all that Romney is a conservative and would lead this nation accordingly.

And then the county chairman for Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign, Chad Workman, made an unexpected digression: He took direct aim at Mitt Romney’s religion, according to four people at the meeting.
Workman questioned whether Mormons were Christians, discussed an article alleging that the Mormon Church helps fund Hamas, and likened the Mormons’ treatment of women to the Taliban’s, said participants, who requested anonymity to discuss the meeting freely.
One participant summed up Workman’s argument this way: “The fundamental flaw of Mitt Romney . . . was that he was Mormon, not because he thinks this way or that way on one issue.”

Nice, huh? Taliban, Hamas. John McCain, classy to the end.

Yeah, I’m sure that’s the problem.

logis on July 13, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Then you would be correct.

Less than a week before the Republican presidential primary debate in Columbia, a wave of anti-Mormon literature has hit select South Carilina mailboxes. The literature does not mention former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by name, but is an indirect attack on him. Romney, considered by many to be one of the three GOP front-runners despite polling low, is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.The eight-page diatribe is titled “Mormons in Contemporary American Society: A Politically Dangerous Religion?” It calls Mormon texts “hoaxes” and labels church founder Joseph Smith a “gold digger turned prophet.”

Odd that Romney is leading in NH, leading in Iowa but doing poorly in SC a Bible Belt state.

The end of September will be the tipping point. Be prepared for the so called “Christians” who will claim absolute moral authority as the decider’s of whose religion is correct and whose is not.
csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Yeah, I’m sure that’s the problem.

The day the primaries are over, that would start to change.
logis on July 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM

The Mormon hit piece movie “September Dawn”, which opens in September, will begin that process well before the primaries are over. If Mitt! can weather the storm that movie will create, then there is nothing the Clinton smear machine will have to attack the guy on his faith after he wins the nomination. There will surely be other areas, but Mitt! will destroy that cow in any debate.

The end of September will be the tipping point. Be prepared for the so called “Christians” who will claim absolute moral authority as the decider’s of whose religion is correct and whose is not.

sublime on July 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Jackstraw really nailed it with this comment…

JackStraw on July 13, 2007 at 10:21 AM

You have the bigotry against the mans religion correct, but you pointed to the wrong people as his biggest hurdle. If Mitt! gets the nomination, he will be the next president. Only Rudy has as good a shot. The rest of the rep candidates and non-candidates will lose in the general. Hands down.

A Mormon would be unelectable in the general because a large segment of the public is biased against Mormonism. It’s unfortunate and irrational, but I don’t think it’s something that Mitt can overcome.
sublime on July 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Outside of Utah, the average American doesn’t really have an opinion one way or the other about Mormonism. And that’s the problem; it’s a blank slate.

The day the primaries are over, that would start to change. By November of 2008, the media will have portrayed Mormonism as a “demon cult”. The Democrat Party will be running on one platform and one platform only: That anyone who refuses to vote for a woman and a black man is an evil “bigot.” For us to try and outdo 150 years of liberal conditioning in one campaign season, and simultaneously create a brand spanking new protected minority, would be a pretty tall order.

I figure it’s something like a 5% swing. Not enough to kill another Ronald Reagan, but it’s a millstone we don’t need on our ticket.

I’d like to hear your rational for that statement. Why, would a Mormon be unelectable in a general? How does doubling the size of Gitmo relate? I think I know, but I’d like you to be more specific.

csdeven on July 13, 2007 at 10:15 AM

A Mormon would be unelectable in the general because a large segment of the public is biased against Mormonism. It’s unfortunate and irrational, but I don’t think it’s something that Mitt can overcome. I would argue that the only reason he’s polling well in the early states primaries is because he’s the only one advertising there, and support in the smaller states is easiest to buy…he has nowhere to go but down when the other campaigns move in.

The Gitmo comment wasn’t meant to relate…I just think that the liberal media have poisoned the public perception of Gitmo to such an extent that the GOP candidates would do well to avoid going on record praising it. Prisons are necessary, but to go out of your way to laud them doesn’t make sense to me.

I am really at a loss to understand how one can be so pro- Fred! and yet so anti-Mitt at the same time.

Buy Danish on July 13, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Because one has a fairly consistant conservative record and the other doesn’t. It’s not that hard to understand.

Puhlease.

I can’t speak for the other “psychos” but…

Look, Fred may make a good, or even great, candidate. It’s too early to tell since he hasn’t even signed up or debated yet. He sounds terrific on some issues, but then again so does Mitt.

I am really at a loss to understand how one can be so pro- Fred! and yet so anti-Mitt at the same time.

Here’s what he had to say when he was awarded the Frontiers Of Freedom Ronald Reagan award this past April.

JackStraw on July 13, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Yeah dude, now he’s praising Reagan’s legacy. You gave us only half of another one of his many flip-flops.

When he was running for governor he distanced himself from Reagan saying he “wouldn’t want to return to the days of Reagan / Bush” and claimed to be an independant at that time. Hell, he even tried to distance himself from his own party… but yeah, now we’re supposed to believe he’d be a good Republican.

As to who’s on his payroll, I’m unimpressed considering these were the very people he tried to disassociate himself with just a few years ago.

Doesn’t much matter anyways- he has about the same chance of getting the nomination as does McCain.

I find Allahpundit’s swooning love affair with Fred! and his habitual sniping at Mitt a bit really irritating, and tiresome… What’s Allahpundit going to do if Mitt gets the nomination?

He’ll probably be dodging the flying pigs.
Hollowpoint on July 13, 2007 at 10:27 AM

So Allahpundit is hopelessly emotionally over-invested in his single-minded hatred against Mitt Romney, but CS and the other psychos wouldn’t even CONSIDER suicide bombing if Thompson happened to get the nomination?

Yeah, riiiight…

Reagan isn’t running for the nomination, obviously.

Hollowpoint on July 13, 2007 at 10:29 AM

So I’ve heard. But you brought him up.

Romney is the class of the field? If by “class” you mean “pandering slickster”, you’re correct. There’s hardly an issue he hasn’t flipped on since he started contemplating his run for President- guns, abortion, the Bush tax cuts, amnesty, views on Reagan (among a few)… he’s the most inauthentic candidate in the field, and his stagnant polls numbers are a reflection of that.

Hollowpoint on July 12, 2007 at 6:08 PM

I just thought I would point out Reagan’s actual record as Gov which by your definition would make him a RINO.

While we’re on the topic of facts. Romney on Reagan.

Saturday, Nov 25, 2006
The day after the midterm elections, Governor Mitt Romney, reflecting on the GOP’s punishing losses, issued a clarion call to conservatives: “We must return to the common-sense Reagan Republican ideals.”

Here’s what he had to say when he was awarded the Frontiers Of Freedom Ronald Reagan award this past April.

Thanks … It is an honor to receive this award and to be associated in a small way with the legacy of President Reagan who fought tirelessly to lift the nation.

I’m sure he would be cheering the life affirming decision of the Supreme Court. The great issues of our times – the life and death issues – should be, as this court realizes, in the hands of the people and the democratic process.

I think you’ll really like this one. Nothing like getting endorsements from Reagan’s financial team for your candidacy, no?

“After his well-received speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference here last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney met with two key leaders in the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.

“Mr. Romney’s dinner guests were Jack Kemp, the architect of the Reagan tax cuts that lifted the economy out of a deep recession, and former Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, a key leader in the Opportunity Society band of House warriors who fought for lower tax rates to spur economic growth and entrepreneurial expansion.

“Mr. Kemp has not signed on to any Republican presidential campaign as yet, but he likes Mr. Romney’s emphasis on further cutting taxes on investment and savings and overhauling the tax code. Mr. Weber, who was a supporter of Sen. John McCain in the 2000 presidential primaries, has joined Mitt Romney’s team and is encouraging Mr. Kemp to climb aboard early.

When you talk about him running away from Reagan, perhaps you could be more specific.

Americans have four basic ways of solving problems that are too big for individuals to handle by themselves. One is through the federal government. A second is through state governments and the local governments that the states create. The third is through the private sector – the economic sector that includes business, agriculture, and labor. The fourth method is the independent sector – the voluntary, cooperative action of free individuals and independent association. Voluntary action is the most powerful of these, because it is uniquely capable of stirring the people themselves and involving their enthusiastic energies, because it is their own – voluntary action is the people’s action. As Woodrow Wilson said, “The most powerful force on earth is the spontaneous cooperation of a free people.” Individualism makes cooperation worthwhile – but cooperation makes freedom possible.

Does the acorn fall far from the tree?

Egads!

And yet you love Reagan who was an abortions supporting, gun grabbing, tax raising Governor of CA. What, you only like west coast RINOs?

JackStraw on July 12, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Reagan isn’t running for the nomination, obviously.

I realize that I am a guest at this blog, but I find Allahpundit’s swooning love affair with Fred! and his habitual sniping at Mitt a bit really irritating, and tiresome.

What’s Allahpundit going to do if Mitt gets the nomination?
Buy Danish on July 12, 2007 at 8:47 PM

He’ll probably be dodging the flying pigs.

sublime on July 13, 2007 at 9:20 AM

The ironic part of your statement is that the hardest part for Romney will be getting the nomination, not attracting Independents and random Dems if he gets the nominaton. The people who care most about religion are the Christian right, a significant part of the primary voters in certain key states. Winning them over is the real challenge.

Dems in MA, the overwhelming majority of voters, showed they had no problem voting for a Mormon. They tend to be more secular. And if you need more proof that Dems will vote for a Mormon, I give you Harry Reid.

sublime on July 13, 2007 at 9:02 AM

I’d like to hear your rational for that statement. Why, would a Mormon be unelectable in a general? How does doubling the size of Gitmo relate? I think I know, but I’d like you to be more specific.

What’s the matter? Are you afraid that when Mitt the Mormon speaks of doubling the size of Gitmo that he intends to do it by allowing Polygamous, gay jihadi weddings?

Oh wait, isn’t that more apt to be something Hillary the ultra left wing Methodist would do?

Who is the candidate whose constituents largely think “marriage is just a piece of paper” or should be redefined to eliminate that pesky man/woman thing?

Unfortunately, a mormon [irrelevant] on record as wanting to double the size of Gitmo [awesome] would be unelectable as POTUS [if 100% of the country were Democrats]. Hopefully GOP voters won’t make the mistake of making him the nominee [becaue that would upset the Dems greatly].

sublime on July 13, 2007 at 9:20 AM

Fixed.