Open thread: The Ames straw poll; Update: Mitt wins, Huckabee second, Paul flames out
posted at 5:50 pm on August 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Mitt will win but by how much? Results are expected by 8 p.m. ET. Chris Cillizza at WaPo says the Romney camp’s shooting for 31%, the same number Bush pulled in 2000, but expectations are already being dampened ahead of the actual vote. If the Paul-bots cut significantly into Mitt’s margin and make a race of it, it’ll be a PR fiasco for Romney. The real intrigue is who takes second and third among Paul, Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, and Tommy Thompson (Rudy and McCain aren’t competing today). My guess is Brownback and America’s Greatest Patriot, in whichever order; pressure on the others to drop out in the aftermath will be intense, and indeed, Thompson’s already promised to pull the plug if he doesn’t do well.
While we wait, the story at this moment is Paul, whose supporters are the loudest and, perhaps, the dirtiest. Ryan Sager’s got early anecdotal evidence suggesting Paulmania may not be all that it’s cracked up to be, but we’ll know soon enough. Dirty tricks and demagoguery are also de rigueur.
Here’s Newt’s speech to the faithful assembled, which his web outfit had up within an hour or two of its airing. The meat begins at around 8:10 if you’re counting down. Following that, the line of the day from the big A’s candidate of choice, Mike Huckabee. Stand by for updates later, maybe.
Update: Hobos for Paul!
Update: Here’s the “Fed Ex vs. Federal Bureaucracy” video Newt mentioned.
Update: Just breaking on Fox — Mitt wins, as expected, and Iron Mike is a surprising and welcome number two. No numbers yet. Stand by.
Update: A banner at FoxNews.com says Mitt took 4,516 votes. The total cast was 14,000 or so, per Marc Ambinder — off from 23,000 cast in 2000 thanks to Rudy, McCain, and Fred having not competed. Assuming Ambinder’s estimate is right, it’s a nice take for Mitt — 32% and change.
Update: 31.5% says Fox News. Huckabee took 18.1%, then Brownback at 15%, then Tancredo at 13.7%. Fred came in seventh with 1.4% — better than Rudy and McCain. No word yet on America’s Greatest Patriot but he obviously flamed out. Duncan Hunter and Tommy Thompson are obviously finished; Paul will stagger on on the fumes of his own messianism.
Update: Full results at WaPo. Paul was fifth, and closer to sixth place than he was to fourth.
Update: Brownback bet big to take second today. He lost.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I’m not sure where the logic is in that. Were it not for the huge amount of Tyson money given to the clintons over the years, Bill would probably have never risen above selling used cars or managing a trailer park, while hillary would be running some small time con somewhere (instead of the big time con she has been running for 20 years).
LegendHasIt on August 12, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Exactly… spot on.
MT on August 12, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Csdeven,
Thanks for your comment.
You write, that “All faiths, including evangelical Christians, fall under those definitions. The difference is that these so called “Christians” who hold themselves as the sole arbiter of who is a “real” Christian, are in direct opposition to the teachings that Jesus taught.”
I respectfully disagree.
Historically, the definition of “cult” was not defined that way at all. So we are using different definitions of “cult.” Additionally, your comments about Jesus’ teachings were simply not accurate. I have more further comments on the above.
But first I want to be respectful to Allahpundit. If Allah does not want us to debate the above issue, then that is fine, no problem.
But if Allah is thinking, “page views. We need more page views…so that MM will get me that iphone…” If that is Allah’s response, then I would like to invite you to have a dialogue in order for me to discuss where your reasoning process (in my judgment) went wrong.
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Tom Tancredo – 14% and some news outlets don’t even list him on the leader board.
OPEN BORDERS ZEALOT Mike “The Huckster” Huckabee gets 18% and their having orgasms over this. guess what they’re rooting for?
DfDeportation on August 12, 2007 at 1:30 PM
The real story here is that Iowa doesn’t matter anymore, and never should have mattered in the first place. Why is the media apparently reluctant to point that out? This whole thing was irrelevant and a waste of time and money. I don’t care who managed to kiss the self-centered Iowans’ behinds the most sycophantically. The Republican nominee wasn’t even there.
On a different note, I sure wish Newt would run. I’m unfortunately fairly convinced now that Republican hopes for the White House are very, very, very slim in 2008. If Newt runs, though, at least he would pull the debate back to genuine conservative ideas and propose solutions for the future. He could set the right tone, even if he lost the race. He would also force the Dem candidate to show her hand in a debate like no other Republican candidate could. He would have the guts to speak the truth and call a socialist a socialist.
aero on August 12, 2007 at 1:53 PM
I like Newt because Newt focuses on ideas. Ideas matter.
Us conservatives don’t control the media, but at least we have ideas on our side. We don’t have control over our tax-payer funded, left-wing, universities , but we have good ideas on our side though. And good ideas tend to win over bad ones.
I do not want him to run as a candidate though. I only wish he would supply conservative ideas to the candidates so that there will be another Reagan Revolution II, this time in 2008, with a different candidate.
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Any poll in which Tancredo pulls in 13 percent is not one in which the hard core conservatives stayed home. Sorry. Moderates stayed home because Rudy and McCain were not there, as evidenced by their paltry showings. When they announced they were skipping it, it immediately became a competition between the social con candidates. To me, this was smart politics on their part. Had they spent the money to compete, they likely would have placed in the top three or four, along with Mitt and maybe one other surprise candidate. Removing themselves from the competition placed enormous pressure on Romney to win big, while giving more political oxygen to his challengers on the right half of the Republican primary bracket. Any scenario in which Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo remain in the race leaves the hard core conservative vote split and is a net benefit to Rudy and McCain. Finally, I think result hurts Fred the most. Until now, he has been the media darling while running his stealth campaign, although some of the shine has some off in the past couple of weeks. Perfect timing for another charismatic, conservative candidate runnning a minimal campaign to show up and give the media something to twitter about. This result will make him the fresh, new underdog candidate, while relegating Fred to “old news” status.
Big S on August 12, 2007 at 2:37 PM
“They have no tolerance for anyone who is not what they decide is a “Christian”. Hence, bigots.”
Matthew 22:36-40
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love he Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Unless Christians want to be accused and criticized, they ought to stop doing it themselves. Of course I understand that they use circular reasoning to justify picketing outside LDS churches on Sundays and hosting websites that propagate lies and half truths about others faiths. They use they old “If your house was on fire would you want me to tell you?” line to justify their attacks etc. They use the same circular reasoning when they say they know the bible is exactly as God intended it because it says so in the text.
People who engage in that kind of delusional thinking eliminate themselves from rational debate.
csdeven on August 12, 2007 at 2:44 PM
The etymology of “cult”.
It was Dr. Walter Martin in the late 70’s early 80’s who made the term “cult” a popular way to demonize anyone who didn’t agree with his understanding on the bible. Although in was in the 40’s that the evangelicals started the practice.
And AP doesn’t care, he wants the page views. But just so you know, my intent is not to get into a discussion to decide if the evangelicals are correct or not. In the final analysis they always end up admitting that they cannot prove the bible is in fact the unerring word of God. And until they do, they have no basis to judge others, except on their faith that they are correct, and that is not a strong enough argument for any to accept that they are the sole arbiters of all truth.
csdeven on August 12, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I agree, but had they attended, and ended up 2nd and 3rd, their campaigns would have been effectively on the rocks as they would have had to expend huge amounts of money to keep up with Mitts! organizational strength. This was a calculated risk were they hope Mitts! bump can be overcome by January. The problem for them is that IF Mitt! can leverage this into more support in SC and Florida, Rudy and McCain will have to really start spending money to keep their leads in those states.
Overall, I think Mitt! is hugely benefited by this win and their (Rudy and John) decision to skip it doesn’t help them one bit and may even hurt them.
csdeven on August 12, 2007 at 3:06 PM
The definition of “Christian” is not rooted in community or sociology (”they decide”) or even psychology (”it is I who decide who is a Christian or not”). Rather, the definition of “Christian” is rooted and grounded in Scripture alone. Thus, it is an objective criteria (not an appeal to “they decide,” i.e. community-based appeals or psychology) that decides who is a Christian or not. Thus, Christians who repeat consistent, standard Mormon doctrine to other Christians are not bigots. They are only telling the truth based on an objective criteria.
The above Scriptural references (though I appreciate you taking the time to post them) do not answer the question of, “who is a Christian?” After all, Mormonism and Christians disagree over who “Lord” really is? Mormonism teaches that, by obedience to the Mormon Law, a mere finite human, can over time + good works, attain divinity and become a god and inhabit a unique planet. Christianity denies plurality of gods, and teaches monotheism. There are other radical differences between Mormonism and Christianity over other things as well, precisely because there are radical differences over the question, “who Jesus is?” between Mormonism and Christianity. To be very brief, Mormonism and Christianity differ radically over epistemology and metaphysics, not to mention theology, the nature of God, the nature of salvation, the question of sanctification, etc. And this is just trying to be very brief.
I, for one, need and probably deserve helpful, instructive criticism from others. I expect to learn from others here at HotAir.com.
But remember, 1 Timothy 4:16 says, “watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers also.” Questioning the doctrine of another is not bigotry at all, but, rather, is commanded throughout Scripture. Jesus himself talks about the inevitability of division in Luke 12:51-53. Division comes because false teachers arise, and need to be rebuked. Your Matthew 22 quote occurs in the context of the parable of the wedding banquet where Jesus Himself says, “many are invited, but few are chosen.” The ones who are chosen are the ones who are said to follow His teachings….I am trying to be very brief here…
I only object to the idea of a Christian repeating consistent, standard Mormon doctrine as an example of “religious bigotry.”
That is not my position. I advocate, “let us first understand what Mormon teachers themselves are saying about Mormon doctrine.” Engaging in half truths is not conducive to progress.
Okay, … I am not clear or sure where this is going here…
Yes, I do believe in using Scripture as the objective criteria for settling theological questions. I do not believe that is delusional at all.
Appealing to an objective criteria is rational, even in this postmodern age.
Your comments about circular reasoning are not clear here at all simply because I do not know what worldview you are operating from. Everybody has a worldview, and yes, everybody uses circular reasoning at some point in the development of a coherent philosophy of life. Everybody does. That is why in logic they make a distinction between virtuous circles and vicious circles.
The question is not, “is it circular reasoning?” Because everybody uses circular reasoning. In logic, the question really is, “is it a vicious circle or a virtuous circle?”
I am not trying to hit you with semantics. I am only trying to be clear to advance progress on my original question posed to you earlier.
Repeating standard, consistent, orthodox Mormon doctrine as understood and taught by Mormons is not an example of religious bigotry.
It is an example of telling the truth.
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 3:23 PM
csdeven on August 12, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I’m not sure Mitt gets a bump out of this; maybe in Iowa, probably not nationally. He met expectations, but did not exceed them. 60% of straw poll attendees voted for someone more conservative than him, and at least three of the other candidates did well enough to continue on into the fall. Romney is now in pretty much the same position he was in before the poll, squeezed between the moderate wing of the party, which is heavily pro- Rudy and McCain, and the conservatve wing, which are the voters he is actively courting. This situation is really a double edged sword for him; he is in position to draw from both sides, and may be able to get the Republican party to coalesce around him, but he may also end up getting squished if someone to his right catches fire a little bit. His best chance is to run as “not Rudy,” and to hope that no other strong “not Rudy” candidate emerges.
Big S on August 12, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Folks … this is not a theology thread.
corona on August 12, 2007 at 3:33 PM
The Church Fathers and the Catholic Church (before 15th century) for centuries have used an objective criteria for defining “what is a cult?” and “what is not a cult?”
It did not begin with Walter Martin. Heresies and questions of “cult” have arisen before.
By the way, to all of my Mormon friends at Hot Air:
I am not defining “cult” in a pejorative, mind-controlling, Charles Manson, suicidal, Jim Jones type of definition. I am only repeating that standard, orthodox, consistent Mormon doctrine (as understood and taught by Mormon thinkers) deviates radically from Christianity at many parts, and that therefore it cannot be called “Christianity.” And I am saying that the word used in the past historically to describe this radical deviation is the word, “cult.”
If you want me to stop using the word, “cult,” then I will stop. We can call it a “radical deviation from historic Christian teaching,” if that is more comfortable for everyone. I am not interested in the semantic word, “cult.” I am more interested in the philosophical concept that lies behind the semantic word, “cult” (the concept of expressing “radical deviation from historic Christian teaching).
Now back to csdeven,
Okay.
This is a separate issue than the one that we originally were discussing about, “Mormon teaching”. I disagree with the statments above, and I do not even know where to respond, because I am trying to be sensitive to Allahpundit’s concern about all of us “staying on topic.”
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I was thinking that Allahpundit shared the same sentiments above too.
Csdeven,
thanks again for the brief discussion. Maybe in the future we will discuss these different sub-issues.
take care,
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Just what we need a pretentious Massachusetts liberal masquerading as a conservative. Ooh…he’s against abortion… How about property rights? Gun rights? Not too pretty. And that bull about his sons’ national service being to get him elected..?
Is this the best we can do, this collection of snakes?
black campbell on August 12, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Tom Tancredo – 14% WOW!
DfDeportation on August 12, 2007 at 6:03 PM
AP will let us know if he wants us on a different topic. It is an open thread and since Mitts! faith seems to be an issue relevant to his worthiness to be CinC, I don’t think it is much of a reach.
Just to clarify something…..the council at Nicaea bastardized the true teachings of Christ. The council bartered and traded the teachings according to the thinking of man and they were not under the direction of a prophet or other earthly authority. Even at that, many partial truths were included that the evangelicals do not understand and make up rational according to their own egos.
The insistence of evangelicals to label the LDS faith as a cult is their arrogant assumption that they are worshiping the “real” Jesus. I submit that because of the actions of the Nicaean council, evangelicals are worshiping a Christ that is not what he really was. So, the term “cult” or the description “radical deviation from the true teachings of Christ” should be applied to those who follow the Nicaean Creed.
I would describe the teachings of the LDS church as a “radical deviation from the erroneous historic Christian teachings” that have been propagated since the 3rd century.
Because of the tamperings of the Council, no one really knows the true nature of Christ and therefore ANYONE’S belief holds as much credibility as any other. So, I reject the bigoted views of so called “Christians” who refuse to accept their belief on faith and allow others the same privilege.
csdeven on August 12, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Ok, another time then.
Peace and cheers!
csdeven on August 12, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Frankly, I couldn’t care less if Mitt! is a mormon, as long as the guy doesn’t raise my taxes.
pullingmyhairout on August 12, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Cool.
Thank you for your background analysis here. I really appreciated that.
My understanding is that you are opposed to the Nicean Council then.
What resources or books would you encourage me to study on this topic?
I am not an expert on the argument of, “the Nicean Council corrupted the truth so that today’s believers are not worshipping the true Jesus” view. I just need to do some study on this very interesting topic.
By chance, are you referring to the “same substance” controversy over Jesus’s nature?
Here are my thoughts.
The debate at Nicean Counci (325) centered on the nature of Jesus’s ontology: that is,
was Jesus of the “same substance” (homo ousia) as God the Father, or was Jesus of a different substance than the Father (entailing that Jesus was just a super-human, or a human with incredible powers–but not identical in nature to God the Father).
This controvery arose in the 4th century, but the answer of the Nicean Council had its origins hundreds of years earlier in the Church Fathers. Tertullian, the Church Father, spoke of the Trinity long before there ever was a Nicean Council.
We also have archaelogical evidence that supports the Nicean Council: that Jesus Christ, as touching his divine nature, is of the ***same substance*** as God the Father.
From the 2nd century, we have a Roman archaelogical find that depicts a cross with a human person on it, and a mule’s head in place of the human head. The ancient Roman inscription is mocking those that worship “Jesus Christ as God.”
The point is that the conclusion which the Nicean Council arrived at—-Jesus Christ, as touching his divine nature, is of the same substance as God the Father— was the same conclusion which the Church Fathers hundreds of years earlier and archaeological evidence had already pointed towards.
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 6:44 PM
I agree.
The issue on the table is: “Mormonism and Christianity”, not “Is Mitt Romney disqualified to become US President solely because of his Mormon religion?”
Me and csdeven are only discussing the first issue, because we both already are in agreement on the second question, which is negative.
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 6:48 PM
This whole “Real Christians” versus Mormons is beginning to strike me as being a lot like Sunni versus Shiite, albeit without the killing.
The difference seems to be that Mormons are willing to “live and let live” and some “Real Christians(at least real Christians in their own minds)” are not.
Pretty sad.
MB4 on August 12, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Csdeven is cool. Really cool. We are only having a discussion.
My response is that as a Christian, I am just responding to God’s grace in Jesus Christ, the some grace that compels me to take seriously His Word where He Himself warns against heresy, false doctrine, etc. I am not interested in throwing stones at Mitt or Mormons. I am only interested in understanding Mormonism as taught by Mormon scholars themselves.
Again, we are not discussing Mitt Romney’s qualification to be President. I will vote for the guy in the general election. I only dislike him because of the flip-flopping issue. To be really honest with you, I was a strong Mitt Romney fan until Allah posted that video of Romney flip-flopping on abortion, and that changed everything for me.
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 7:01 PM
I know. I am late to the party and didn’t feel like reading 200+ comments. :)
pullingmyhairout on August 12, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Welcome.
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 7:07 PM
I’m going to have to do some more research on the Mormon church. Until then, I’ll keep my keyboard quiet. Overall, I like Mitt – even though he’s flipped on the abortion issue. He’s on the right side now and that’s really all that matters.
pullingmyhairout on August 12, 2007 at 8:16 PM
I have studied it quit a bit, by no means a scholar, but at times being a scholar is a hindrance to having a common sense approach to scripture study.
They teach some very interesting things. The first teaching that piqued my interest was baptism for the dead as referenced in 1 Corinthians 15:29.
It reads: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
The LDS are the only church I know of that practices this rite. I’ve heard the evangelical arguments against it, but is always comes off as someone jumping the shark because they can’t explain it.
Anyway, interesting stuff.
csdeven on August 12, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Waz up!!
Are you still on board? I just got back from shooting basketball.
ColtsFan on August 12, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Good thing about the not killing huh?
Not even close though about the Mormon vs Christianity though. Joseph Smith said that Christianity was an abomination.
Christ is the Creator of the universe for Christians, God the Son. Christ is a created being to Mormons which is anathema to Christians. It would be like saying that Da Vinci is actually the Mona Lisa. No. Da Vinci was the creator and the Mona Lisa was the created thing. You can either have the Bible or “some-guy-said” because it always comes down to that. The Bible escapes the “some-guy-said” syndrome of religion due to prophecies that come true, ie. God said it, not “some-guy”.
Stuff like baptism for the dead goes like this. Find a logical argument by St. Paul about a completely different point, run with it, and build an entire rite around it. Not something to wager your soul on.
Mojave Mark on August 13, 2007 at 12:58 AM
The ron paulians made a pit stop at LGF when this poll was brought up. Whenever ron paul is in any post of Charles’ they just go bananas with hate mail and ehe milder ones who have an account to post sound like numnuts. I have never seen such a whacked out bunch of followers….ok I take that back..islam beats everyone hands down.
Highrise on August 13, 2007 at 5:07 AM
Yeah, jump that shark.
csdeven on August 13, 2007 at 7:21 AM
Well, Tommy Thompson is out. We need to continue to pressure that fake fred? to grow a pair and announce or get out. We as Americans have a responsibility to protect our misguided citizens from sending any more money to that liar. It’s entirely possible that this whole non-campaign will end up exactly like his last non-campaign for senate went. He dropped out at the last minute, took the contributions and funneled them to his son. Right now he has 3.4 million. He could hire a lot of relatives with that.
csdeven on August 13, 2007 at 7:33 AM
cs, methinks you are just peeved that Fred didn’t hire you instead of his son.
Texas Nick 77 on August 13, 2007 at 9:05 AM
We will see how well Mitt does when he has to take on his friend Teddy. We will see how well Mitt does in the bible belt, will they vote for a non-christian? His weak business experience (yeah I know he was a consultant) will come to play, every kid of every big time politition is a “consultant” at one time or another. He went to Harvard business school, hello, his father was Gov. of Mass. He couldn’t correct the “big dig” in Boston, had to get in bed with Teddy, is a non-christian depending on Christian votes. He dodged the draft (oh I’m sorry, he was sent to serve on a mission in France, just happend to be France).
right2bright on August 13, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Dude, not until the new season of Law and Order starts.
Pablo on August 13, 2007 at 9:33 AM
This is what Mitt is going to have to fight. Buying a company, laying off all of the workers, then offering to hire them back at a lower wage. Kennedy ran an ad showing the laid off workers on strike, it was a knife in Mitt’s campaign.
Good business? Probably…good for election? Probably not. This is how Kennedy killed Mitt.
Blue collar is going to have to accept this.
right2bright on August 13, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Maybe one of the most depressing quotes from Mitt.
When pressed in a debate with Ted Kennedy, rather than standing up and fighting for Reagan policies. He put his tail between his legs, and distanced himself from being a conservative.
When under pressure, he is an independent (too bad independent doesn’t mean independent), when speaking to his “party”, he is a conservative.
I wish he was who he wants to be, but he just can’t stand tall. He looks great, talks great, but his history says he is too weak…a real insider.
right2bright on August 13, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Wow. Almost nothing in what you said was true. That has to be some kind of record.
Weak business experience? He started out of school as a consultant and then took over as CEO of Bain Capital. He grew it into one of the largest, most successful VC firms in the country. He has been called “the best businessman in N. America” by Jim Cramer. He rescued the Salt Lake olympics when they were floundering in debt and corruption and actually made it profitable. He has created a personal fortune of greater than a quarter billion dollars. Weak? Try again.
His father not only was not governor of MA, he never lived in MA. His father was governor MI. Romney not only got his MBA from Harvard, he got his JD. At the same time. Yea, that’s pretty hard to do.
He most certainly did “fix” the big dig. It was completed on his watch after years of mismanagement and overruns.
The only serious Republican in the race who was in the military is McCain. If Romney is a draft dodger, so is every other candidate.
If Christians are going to be bigots, not much Romney can do about it. Just another reason why religion has no place in politics.
The stuff about Kennedy is lame. Romney ran against Kennedy for Senate and gave him a better race than anyone ever has. Beating a Kennedy in MA is sort of like beating Castro in Cuba. Mitt gave him a hell of a run. They are hardly buddies.
Hey, if you don’t like him don’t vote for him. But it would help if you actually knew his record.
JackStraw on August 13, 2007 at 11:53 AM
That’s AFL-CIO propaganda. Here are the facts….
Union workers would rather run a company into the ground than do what it needs to do to secure their jobs. As you will see, it was the union that closed the plant down. It was re-opened in a different area and became one of the three largest supply manufacturers in North America.
There are facts out there that matter ya know.
csdeven on August 13, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Huckabee on federal immigration law:
I opposed the amnesty bill that was defeated by the Senate in June. I support the $3 billion that Congress recently appropriated for border security. These funds will be used to train and deploy 23,000 more agents, add four drone airplanes, build 700 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and erect 105 radar and camera towers. They will be used to end “catch and release” by providing money to “catch and detain” those caught entering illegally and to crack down on those who enter legally, but overstay their visas. These border security provisions will stem the tide of illegals, which is what we must do before we can turn the tide and deal with those who are already here. Before you fix the damage in your house caused by a leaking roof, you stop the leak, which is what this legislation will do.
My number one priority is to have a secure border. Right now, we have too many people entering the country illegally, and this must stop. We can’t turn the tide until we stem the tide. We need to know who is coming into our country, where they are going, and why they are here. We need to create a process to allow people to come here to do the jobs – plucking chickens, tarring roofs, picking fruits – that are going unfilled by our citizens. They must have a tamper-proof, scannable I. D. with a finger or retinal scan, so that their employers know they belong here.
Besides stopping terrorists, we must weed out those with a criminal background or a communicable disease. We have to build a fence along our border with Mexico, parts of which will be electronic. We need more well-trained border agents and cooperation agreements with local and state law enforcement officials, so that we have a clear and consistent approach by all jurisdictions.
Those who are caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported. Illegal immigrants who are already living among us and commit crimes must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and incarcerated or deported.
EduardoOTI on August 13, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Thanks for correcting my one error. The point being, most powerful business men and politicos have their sons and daughters go to first class schools. It is the right of the priviledge to do so. Chelsea went to Stanford, Trump kids went to Wharton, Kennedy etc. Being a consultant with a powerful political family is assured of success. Almost any business you move to makes you successful. Jessie jr., successfull business, Trump kids, Bush, Gore is now a successful business person, the list goes on. If you are connected it more than helps, it assures you of success. Even crazy Paris Hilton makes a fortune from the connections and her name, youi would call her a succesfull business worman? The big dig was never in budget, Mitt was there the whole time. Not every candidate ran to France to dodge the draft.
So my error was I misstated where is father was Governor. He was chairman: of the American Motors Corporation from 1954 to 1962 and was elected three times as the Republican Governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, born on Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua…there, now my posting is correct.
right2bright on August 13, 2007 at 3:11 PM
You missed my point (I did say it may have been a good business decision), he has to overcome what I wrote, because that is what took him down. He was ahead of the polls until Teddy ran the ad that brought him down. Your facts are your facts, Teddy’s are his. Teddy’s won out last time, now Mitt has to be able to overcome that history.
We learned from Whitewater that complex answers to complex questions get lost on the general public. Put your answer next to a wailing women with a baby in her arms stating “he took my job away now he wants to pay me less…where is the justice. And he is forcing me to buy health insurance I can’t afford because he is lowering my wage…what are my baby and I going to do.”
Who wins that, your answer, or Teddy’s disingenous but effective statement.
An academic question, we know what happened. Big business men are not always looked on with favor.
right2bright on August 13, 2007 at 3:23 PM
No, no it’s not. You set out to slam Romney and used mistruths and distortions.
You have no idea how Romney got into Harvard. Maybe it was the fact that he was valedictorian at BYU? Grad schools tend to like summa cum laude grads. Did you know he was a Baker Scholar at Harvard B School? No, I bet you didn’t. Harvard doesn’t give those out to politicians kids, you have to earn them. And they sure as hell don’t give dual MBAs/JDs to someone who’s dad was a Republican govenor of a different state. So this was wrong.
Romney didn’t go into daddy’s business like all the ones you listed. He made his own way and I can tell you from personal experience he is highly respected in the business world based on his intellect and accomplishments, not on his dad’s rep. You were wrong here.
Romney was not there the whole time of the big dig. It started when Mike Dukakis was governor. I know. I lived there. Romney inherited a project that had been going on for over 8 years and billions of dollars over budget. He got it completed. Wrong again.
Romney didn’t run anywhere. Morons go on missions. They don’t choose where they go, they are told where they are going. Wrong yet again.
Romney and Kennedy are anything but friends as you have suggested repeatedly in attempt to paint him as a liberal. Romney ran a harsh campaign against Kennedy and vica versa. Romney came as close to beating Kennedy as anyone has in his long Senatorial career. The “I’m not a clone of Reagan” quote you like to toss out came as a response to Kennedy repeatedly trying to tie him to Reagan in MA. As anyone who has lived there will tell you, Reagan is not beloved in MA. Romney was trying to win. Horrors. Politics in a political race. He has a very conservative record as govenor, as much as could be expected in MA. Wrong…yep, again.
The entire premise of your comment was wrong as are your “facts”. Romney is not a liberal, he did not succeed based on nepotism, he did not run to France and he is no friend of liberals like Teddy Kennedy.
You’re free to have your own opinion but not your own facts.
JackStraw on August 13, 2007 at 3:44 PM
In that debate when Mitt! said he wasn’t running as a Reaganite was a mistake on his part. The swimmer framed the Reagan policies in the worst possible terms and instead of Mitt! correcting him on the record, he said he was an independent during the Reagan years. And had Mitt! beat the swimmer in 1994, he would have been coronated king of the US by now. Any republican that could remove that loon from office would be revered as Reagan was.
csdeven on August 13, 2007 at 4:02 PM
I agree with you on a lot but on this one I think you’re dead wrong. Ronald Reagan may be a hero in red states, he may be ok in purple. In the bluest of blue states, MA, there is little love for Reagan.
He was trying to win as a Republican in a state that has zero, donut, nada Republican members of Congress. Zero Republican state wide office holders and quite possibly the most ineffectual Republican party in the country. He was also running as the man known as The Liberal Lion of the Senate. Hell, even Reagan didn’t run for governor as the conservative hero he ran as for president and his record as a governor was more liberal than Romney’s.
If he had embraced Reagan he would have been destroyed in that race and never would have gotten elected governor. There’s a big difference in rhetoric you run on and how you govern. Look at the record.
JackStraw on August 13, 2007 at 4:16 PM
He was also running as the man known
asagainst The Liberal Lion of the Senate.JackStraw on August 13, 2007 at 4:19 PM
So much, and so little time.
So he will say anything to be elected…thank you, you made my case. I think it is best for a candidate to stand for what he believes, not what he believes the voters want to hear.
If you are saying that belonging to a powerful family does not give you an upperhand in business, you are not very “business smart”. If you are saying that belonging to a powerful family does not open academic doors, you are not very “school smart”. The finest go to the finest, he is intelligent, just like you would be if you were given the finest education, from kindergarten on…just like some of the people I pointed out…Bush, Kennedy, Trump, Jackson, I could give you hundreds of examples. Harvard, Stanford, BYU, Berkely, Yale, Notre Dame, are full of examples…but you don’t believe priviledge has it’s benefits. Dual MBA’s and JD are common now, both my kids have them (from tier one schools), big deal for a 1/2 million and hard work they own them, but they are not unique, half of their peers have them. And it is not unusual to have honors, that is how you get into a tier one school.
I did not say he went into daddy’s business (beside the politics, oops)…could you point that out? Your anger is making you read things that aren’t there.
I said his daddy’s powerful position placed Mitt in a position of being valuable to any consulting group. If you do not know that, you have failed business 101. Gore…consulting,Bush…consulting,Thompson…consulting,Kennedy…consulting, Jackson…consulting…do you see the pattern?
I hope this was a typo. Out of thousands of places to send Mitt, and the thousands sent each year. He just happened to be sent to France. Hey, he not only good looking, he’s lucky. And don’t be so quick to say “it is random, they have no say where they are going”, it is a closed system of selection, you have no idea how they are picked.
I said it was completed over budget, you are saying it was completed in budget? News to me. And he was not part of the process in Mass. at the time? So he just showed up to be gov.(no prior interest or experience), and never addressed this drastic issue before?
Could you pull out the statement where I said he was liberal? Or is that another one of your tall tales?
I said, or rather I quoted him saying that he was and independent, and he said that because he couldn’t take the heat from Teddy calling him a Reagan supporter.
Listen, you love Mitt, good for you…I hope he clears all of the hurdles and wins I think he is right on his education ideas, wrong on his health care ideas. I hope all of the Republicans clear their hurdles and we have a fantastic group. But all of them have huge mountains to climb, and turning a deaf ear to their weakness is a sure sign of defeat.
And right now it is too early to tell, the real fight hasn’t begun.
right2bright on August 13, 2007 at 5:14 PM
I can’t argue with that.
csdeven on August 13, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Easy to explain, but I will let a real scholar explain it.
Having confirmed the truth of our Saviour’s resurrection, the apostle goes on to refute those among the Corinthians who said there would be none. In other words he was showing that Christs resurrection is for real. It had nothing to do with anything besides proving that Christ is resurrected. I don’t think LDS believes that Christ was resurrected…I may be wrong. It is difficult to read this from the King James, it was translated as accuratly as possible for the time. But even Matthew Henry caught this glaring obvious point. However, others less versed in ancient texts would have misinterpreted these types of passages. With the advent of the computer, and studies from Universities like UCI, the dead languages are more accuately interpreted. Which makes Mathew Henry even more amazing. Most all of his works have stood the test of time.
You see he was talking to the people of Corinth, taking them back to the basics. That is where it is important to read people like Matthew Henry, Abbot, Darby, Gill, etc. taken from the original Greek and Hebrew.
Always go back to the bible and the original works, Greek and Hebrew, to find the real meaning. King James is great for its time, but confusing in its context. And often misquoted because of its detachment from more modern and accuate interpretations.
The christian commentaries I mentioned are a couple of the most accurate and precise. If you read the commentaries you won’t be led down those dead end paths, like this verse (get it, dead end pass).
right2bright on August 13, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Sure. Just like Fred saying in a purple state that he thought that the choice of an abortion should be left up to the woman. Are you telling me that you are surprised that politicians say expedient things in the middle of an election? Really? Welcome to planet earth. If you don’t get that Republicans don’t embrace Reagan in Mass I’m not sure how to make it any more clear. Reagan is not loved in MA. It’s like a Democrat being tied to Kennedy in the most red state in the country. It isn’t going to happen. Why don’t you tell me what about his record as governor you don’t like.
Absurd. Your whole premise is that Romney is just a child of wealth and connections. Is anyone supposed to be surprised that rich kids get a head start in life? So what. It’s what they do with it. Al Gore’s kid chose to become a drug addict. Romney became a fabulously successful businessman and not, as you said, a mediocre one. If this race was strictly based on who has demonstrated a better record as an executive, the race would be over and Romney would be the nominee.
This is what you said.
So if it was weak, prove it.
Actually, I do know. And one of things I know is that the person being sent on the mission has absolutely no say in the matter. They are assigned a mission by the church. Just because you think you know what the Mormon church is about, doesn’t mean you do.
No, you said he couldn’t get it fixed. He was in private business when it began. So what was he supposed to do when he took over as governor when it was already 8+ years into the process and billions, many billions, over budget? Go back in time? He got it completed. What more should he have done? Blaming Romney for somehow not being able to recapture billions of dollars of overruns that happnened as much as 8 years before he even started running for governor is ridiculous. No check that, it’s stupid and dishonest. It would be the equivalent of saying the next president will bring the war in Iraq to a close 3 years ago for less money than it has cost to date.
Please, don’t be coy. You, I and anyone who reads this combined with every other slanted thing you said knows exactly what you were implying. Romney is not and never has been a friend of the Kennedy’s. He is one of the few to take them on and call him for what he is.
Yea, there are lots of hurdles but creating weaknesses where they don’t exist shouldn’t be one of them. And if you’re such a Christian, be honest. The reason you don’t like Romney is because he’s a Mormon. Period. You clearly no nothing about his real record.
JackStraw on August 13, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Here is one Christian’s response to the above:
I respect Romney. I like his record.
I am just very hesitate about the “flip-flopping” issue. There is no need to read anything more into it.
ColtsFan on August 14, 2007 at 12:24 AM
So you can’t find where I said he was a liberal, because I don’t believe he is a liberal. At least when you make a mistake, admit it.
So, you pull out the ol, victim card. He’s a Mormon, so I don’t like him. Guess you can’t question him at all if he is a victim. Try another line, that one won’t work here. I guess I could say you are a Mormon so you will vote for him no matter what.
Ummm, isn’t that Mitt who said he would support Roe vs. Wade. Oh, he doesn’t believe in it, but he supports it.
You think he is a
I think that he would have been a good businessman, but his connections made him “fabulous”. I gave you several examples of that happening, you gave me Gores kid. In 20 years Gore’s kid will probably be a fabulous businessman also, just like the Kennedy’s.
You said he fixed the big dig, I said he had a chance to give his input earlier than “I am now a governer, I will now take an interest”.
At least your backing off from not admitting that people of privilege have an advantage.
And no you don’t know how they are chosen for missionary. Are the names put into a hat, do they use a computer to randomly select, do they match up background to need, do they role dice, how do they make that selection? Well, I have two friends (different stakes) who wanted their kids to go to South America (actually one to central and the other to South). They were big donors, their kids were lucky just like Mitt. They both ended up in Central and South America, they were not as handsome, but just as lucky.
It’s a good thing they don’t like Mormons in Mass or he would have to turn his back on them. That’s the point, he will say whatever he needs to to get elected. I could not have used a better example than the one you defended. Thank you. I think you are beginning to see that Mitt is not all that his website says he is.
This is a start, and like any 12 step program, it is difficult. But together we can lick this addiction. Put you faith in a higher power (me) and you will be able to overcome this overwhelming attraction that leaves you blind.
I like your slam at the end, that was kind of cute. I never mentioned religion to you, but you had to slide that in. It is what they call a “fixation”, I can help you with that also.
right2bright on August 14, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Would the Romney apologists feel the same way about him if he were a Jehovah’s Witness, a Muslim, a member of David Koresh’s church, a member of Jim Jones’ church, or any of the other cults out there? Just because the LDS church has money doesn’t mean it’s any less a cult.
People throw the bigot line out there just like the open borders crowd throws out the rascist line. It’s a misdirection. The vast majority of Christians aren’t bigots, we just know our bibles and we know that Mormonism is a cult. The gospel doesn’t change so don’t expect Christians to change their position anytime soon this millenia. And, don’t expect Mitt to ever get their vote.
Mojave Mark on August 14, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Oh cripes. I’ve known a lot of ‘main stream’ Mormons, (ex- ‘uncle-in-law’ is a Mormon Bishop, for example) and every single one of them was an admirable person….. To the point that I considered ‘converting’ and joining them. Sure, some of the minor details of their beliefs are pretty weird (definitely weird, but harmless), but their approach to life in general is very wise.
As far as I’m concerned, Romney’s Mormonism is a qualification, not a disqualification.
It is his Massachusetts political background and general ’slickness’ that has ME worried. A random choice from the Salt Lake City or Ogden, UT telephone directory would probably make a better President than most of the bozos running.
LegendHasIt on August 14, 2007 at 4:40 AM
Yup. Mojave Mark and right2bright are making ignorant and bigoted statements. Both of them should explain to the group what they think of the Christians who will vote for Mitt!.
Just seen this on Fox and Friends…..
Mike Gallagher suggested that Karl Rove might be going to work for Mitt Romney’s campaign. Hmmmmm.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 7:28 AM
Lordy, you are a disgusting bigot! Your straw man argument is weak also. First, David Koresh’s and Jim Jones were hardly harmless and there is no comparison to those other faiths. In a post 9/11 world, a Muslim is unelectable regardless of his qualifications. As far as all the other faiths you sick bigots judge as cults, unlike you and your ilk the rest of us reasonable enlightened folks aren’t trying to elect a theological leader, so we don’t care what faith a candidate is. As a matter of fact, most of us would be less likely to vote for a candidate when they inject their religion into the campaign.
If a evangelical Christian was running, I’d want to know if he was as bigoted and foul as you are before I considered him a candidate. You, I am sure, would vote for him regardless of his qualifications to be POTUS.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 7:40 AM
hahaha
I find it funny as heck when you “Christians” like to claim the bible as unfallible until it says something you don’t like. Then you find all sorts of ways to nuance it.
Spare me.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 8:00 AM
Point out my bigoted statements. You have a habit of accusing me of things I haven’t said.
This is the third or fourth time I have caught you. And of course you will ignore, run, and hide.
Here is one (csdeven) Legend that is not so admirable. He has a habit of misquoting and lying about posters.
I haven’t even approached his (Mitt’s) religion, except where I said he has to overcome the bible belt mentality. If you don’t think that is on his radar, you are very naive.
Once again, point out where I said a bigoted statement. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, and learn some manners.
right2bright on August 14, 2007 at 8:15 AM
That’s funny, you posted that you had never heard a good response to the Corinth. quote. I gave you one of the most respected theologins response along with several other sources and you say something about nuance, and blow him off. Is that your way of saying, no matter the facts I won’t believe?
I take it you had never heard of Henry commentaries?
Google commentaries and you will find some of the great theologins dissecting each passage.
right2bright on August 14, 2007 at 8:28 AM
No problem. Your opinions are based in bigotry. Read it and weep bigot.
The South American missions are where a large part of missionaries go. Their desire for their sons to go there had a better than average chance of happening for them.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Riiiight. The point is that you have to nuance the bible now, but when it says what you want, you just accept it. Hypocrite.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 9:34 AM
What I don’t get about bigots like Mojave Mark and right2bright is their obsession with religion in a secular presidential campaign. They slavishly lap up the filth regurgitated by their pastors instead of doing real research and vetting a candidate on issues that matter.
This will be the last time I educate these two on this stuff.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 10:04 AM
And then again, here’s some stuff you will choke on, and since the positive stuff about Mitt! is the majority opinion, it’s no wonder you two don’t get educated.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 10:21 AM
And here is the difference between a real qualified candidate in Mitt!, and the rehashed rhetoric that fred? keeps spewing. Rhetoric that he has stolen from other conservatives. The guy has no plan to lead. He is only interested in running as his character from TV and fooling gullible groupies into voting for him.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Rather than passing out slurs, read my posts, I never said anything negative about Mitt’s religion. You are the one bringing it up.
And you once again lump me with someone else. If you can’t be honest in your analysis, don’t post.
You don’t intimidate me, by accusing me of something I am not. Show me my “bigot” statements. Or allow yourself to be banned.
Calling someone a profane name and not backing it up should be cause for banning.
right2bright on August 14, 2007 at 10:35 AM
You remind me of the Jihadists who spew their filth at Christians, and when called on it…gnash their teeth.
Questioning someone, and giving an example, is common in discussion (although apparently not in your circle). If you want to play the “victim card” go ahead, no one in this race is above reproach. Not Mitt (the “I am Mormon” card), or Fred (the “actor card”), or Rudy (the “I saved Amer. from 9/11 card), or Hillary (”I am woman, hear me roar” card), Obama (”I am black” card), McCain (”I am a war hero” card), they are all up for analysis. And we have a right to question all of their backgrounds, in detail.
But once again, I hope AP is monitoring this, if you call someone a name, better back it up or face being banned.
No more name calling. An apology would be nice. This dicussion has deterioated, to you calling names, and bigot is an obscene name. Best you stop while you can still post.
right2bright on August 14, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Accusing the LDS church of accepting money bribes from it’s members is bigoted and ignorant.
Therefore, you are a bigot and an ignorant jerk.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Okay, where did I say they accepted bribes? Another one of your lies.
I hinted that influential people can influence decisions. You don’t think influential people do. I gave you two examples (3 counting Mitt), never, ever stated bribes were involved, in fact if bribes were involved they would probably be suspended or at least have their Temple priviledges revoked. What an imagination you have.
I will accept your apology when you grow up and read.
right2bright on August 14, 2007 at 11:36 AM
A: I said every single one that I have KNOWN was admirable.
B: I was unaware that csdeven is a Mormon, if indeed (s?)he is. In any case, the personality that csdevin has shown here at HA is definitely not representative of any of the dozens of Mormons I have gotten to know fairly well, or the hundreds I have met in passing.
LegendHasIt on August 14, 2007 at 1:15 PM
I agree.
right2bright on August 14, 2007 at 3:12 PM
I have never said to what, if any, faith I belong to. And you’re right about LDS people. Everyone I have ever met was a decent person. Not like these bigoted so-called “Christians”.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I had seconds thoughts. right2bright, I apologize for being so rude. It wont happen again.
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Fred!? at seeing this thread might just say something poetic like “In the words of a wise man once known as a LA Thug.. can’t we just get along?”
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Huh. Baptist Minister, eh?
Jaibones on August 15, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Yah know… the best person to ask about Mormonism being a cult are ex-Mormons. Who would know better than they?
In real Christianity Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe. Mormons don’t approve of pesky verses like this one so they just say “Well THAT part of the bible is wrong.” How convenient. To unbelievers this is merely arcane discourse but to a Christian it’s a non-negotiable. Jesus to Mormons is merely a created being and that is anathema.
For the record, I’d vote for Romney if he was the nominee. It’s just easier to call Christians who know their bibles bigots rather than debate them based on scripture.
Mojave Mark on August 16, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Mike Huckabee says that “I tend to think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship.”
“…creating a pathway where people can have a form of restitution to make things right, to understand that laws have to be obeyed or some consequences have to be applied.”
He believes it “makes more sense than trying to deport 12 million people or build a 700 million, ehr…700 billion dollar fence.”
Count me out for Huckabee. No Way, No How!
jaime on August 16, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Go after the criminal illegals (ie violent crime) and deport them. Then just destroy any business that hires ‘em. They’ll leave on their own.
Mojave Mark on August 16, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3