Geraghty: If Mitt’s the nominee, lefty bigots won’t be able to stop themselves; Update: Readers sound off on why they won’t vote for a Mormon

posted at 12:24 pm on November 13, 2007 by Allahpundit

True enough but would it matter?

A while back, one of my Romney guys said that in a general election showdown between his man and Hillary Clinton, there are two “landmine” moments. One is if Romney (or any male candidate, for that matter) says or does anything that sounds the slightest bit sexist.

As we’ve seen, facing tough questioning from moderators and criticism from rivals was enough to get Team Hillary to play “they’re piling on to a woman!” card already.

The second “landmine” moment would be, he suggested, if she says or does anything that appears critical of Romney’s faith. Looking at Robert Redford’s comments about Mormons from earlier today [See here. — ed.], I wonder if Romney vs. Hillary could be a matchup that would turn out quite well for the GOP…

I suspect that if Romney were to get the nomination, we would hear a great deal from those folks about just what’s wrong with “those” Mormons, and the rhetoric would be ugly enough to match the seething disdain, and irrational bigotry lurking in the hearts of the intemperate. Somebody ought to set up a pool to guess which figure makes the first horrific statement painting all Mormons with a broad brush: Rosie O’Donnell? Bill Maher? Michael Moore? Keith Olbermann? Frank Rich?

I doubt whether Frank Rich making a crack about Mormon undergarments would be enough to move the polls (although it would be primo blog fodder), but Jim’s right that that sort of thing is bound to happen. What if it does? Well, first, if someone like Maher goes after Mormons, he’s more likely to do so in the context of denigrating Christianity as a whole, e.g. “Sure, Mormonism’s weird, but is it any weirder than the Catholic Church?” Americans are generally willing to tolerate anti-religious sentiment so long as it’s not focused on a “minority” faith. Second, reporters who want to inject this sort of thing without taking too much responsibility for it have an easy dodge available by framing it in terms of what Americans, not they themselves, allegedly believe. (“Romney leads in Iowa and New Hamphire but Americans may find his belief in some of the more eccentric aspects of LDS theology suspicious.”)

Third, there’s a huge open question about how solidly conservatives would be willing to line up behind Mitt on the religious issue if he’s attacked for it. Most will do so, partly out of decency, partly out of conservative tribalism, and partly out of sheer outrage at the left for being such filthy intolerant hypocrites, but the fact is that there are parts of the right-wing base even now who are warning him not to go around pretending like he’s “one of us.” (See this poll from September and compare Mormons’ numbers to Muslim Americans’.) The left may sense an opening there to peel some of them away; the trick would be to cast enough aspersions on Mormonism to scare off those voters without casting so many that even centrist Democrats become disgusted by the tactic. There are faiths that would disqualify a candidate who belonged to them in many voters’ eyes, Scientology being the most obvious example. The task for Hillary et al. would be to legitimize that calculus in voters’ minds and get them to thinking where Mormonism falls on the spectrum between Dianetics and the Bible. A scummy tactic but not hard to imagine.

One other point. While both sexism and anti-Mormonism may be landmines, the former is much bigger than the latter, needless to say. A crack about Hillary’s gender won’t peel off any Democrat-leaners the way an aspersion cast on Mormonism might among Republican-leaners; on the contrary, it would surely peel off a few women who’d planned on voting Republican (and potentially more than a few, depending upon how snide it was). Revisit this poll from February and compare the relevant categories: Americans overwhelmingly accept a woman candidate but they’re a bit more circumspect about Mormons, suggesting that they view anti-woman sentiment as essentially irrational but are a smidge more nuanced when it comes to LDS. That helps the left, but at 72%, thankfully not as much as it might.

Update: Martin Frost asked his readers whether they’d vote for a Mormon candidate. Most said they would — but not all. Click to see what Mitt’s up against. Objections to LDS’s alleged racism, its hierarchical nature, even the underwear. My favorite:

Jessica Elliott: “I can’t speak for all Christians or all Republicans, but I can give you an honest perspective from one average Christian mom who would never vote for a Mormon. You understand already that many people call Mormonism a cult. What you may not understand is that many of us see Mormonism as such a strange, ridiculous belief system that we have to seriously doubt the judgment of anyone who could believe it. It’s like asking us to consider voting for someone who believes they were kidnapped by aliens.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

McCain’s mom already started, as shown a few days ago…

MadisonConservative on November 13, 2007 at 12:27 PM

the dems will be bigoted about romneys mormonism, the gop will be bigoted about Obamas Muslim..ism.

zane on November 13, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Mitt is a strong candidate, with deep pockets (set a record for media ads, 10 mil). But his baggage will weight him down. A flip flopper, the Mormon thing (every supporter has played the Mormon victim card on this site), his backing down from Ted Kennedy, his business cronies who are deep into his pockets.
He looks good, sounds good, would make a great cardboard prop on stage…but he can’t win.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Does anybody here give a damn that Mitt Romney is a Mormon?

SoulGlo on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

He looks good, sounds good, would make a great cardboard prop on stage…but he can’t win.

I don’t know. His ‘accomplishment’ ad against Hillary was a strong one. One of the strongest anti-Hillary ads. We get Boston-based radio and television out here, so I had a chance to see and hear a lot of Romney during his term as Mass governor. Not bad at all.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Does anybody here see Shrillary as feminine?

MNDavenotPC on November 13, 2007 at 12:34 PM

My problem with Romney is not his Mormonism but it is his slickness. He is so well polished I get the feeling I am being sold something that isn’t quite what it appears to be. Then I am afraid I am veering into liberal think, feeling my way to the “correct” answer.

Bill C on November 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

When Romney ran for governor of MA in 2002 against Shannon O’Brien, he referred to one of her positions during a debate as “unbecoming” He got a ton of flak for that, look for that incident to be resurrected if its Romney vs Clinton in 2008.

Jimmy the Dhimmi on November 13, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Hillary is a woman?

pedestrian on November 13, 2007 at 12:38 PM

I don’t know. His ‘accomplishment’ ad against Hillary was a strong one. One of the strongest anti-Hillary ads. We get Boston-based radio and television out here, so I had a chance to see and hear a lot of Romney during his term as Mass governor. Not bad at all.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 12:34 PM

That’s the one thing about Romney on his side, he will be facing Hillary who is so fake she is incapable of showing her true self. One of the reasons I am a Thompson supporter is that he is comfortable in his skin, a genuine man. Too bad he hasn’t been able to catch fire. Part of the problem there is Fred should realize that Mitt is his main competition and go after him. McCain already has.

Bill C on November 13, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Does anybody here give a damn that Mitt Romney is a Mormon?

SoulGlo on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Not really. I mean, is he qualified? Can he lead a country?

Does it bother anyone that government officials are Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, etc. etc.?

mjk on November 13, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Mormons suck just like the rest of us. If Rommney is attacked because of his religion, we will give the Dems some well-earned grief over their not-so-veiled bigotry.

Then some genius Republican pol will say something stupid, get indicted, get caught with a hooker and/or involuntarily come out of the closet.

Never fails. We don’t want to win and our splintered party indicates just that.

The Race Card on November 13, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Does anybody here give a damn that Mitt Romney is a Mormon?

SoulGlo on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

No… Maybe democratic stratigists.

liquidflorian on November 13, 2007 at 12:41 PM

the dems will be bigoted about romneys mormonism, the gop will be bigoted about Obamas Muslim Liberal..ism.

zane on November 13, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

PappaMac on November 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Whilst they have a go at Romney’s Mormonism, the Dems will *Conveniently* forget that their ‘great’ Senate Leader, Harry Reid, is a practising Mormon too.

But I guess I’m being picky……

Britcop on November 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM

I’m not so sure that if it is Mitt v. Clinton, those like Maher will try to take down Christianity as a whole. The reason for this is because some element of Christianity has to be maintained for Hillary. She, in the general election, will move right; and part of that movement has to include a “Christian” aspect in order to do what she can to advance in the South. If she is trying to move towards the right, while the spin machine is wrecking both Mormonism and Christianity, her “Christian credentials” will also be hit. I imagine that the form of Christianity that will be left alone is that form that expresses itself within a portion of the black community, such as that which has already been exploited by both Clinton and Obama. It is in that arena that the orthodox tenants of Christianity can be covered up by the modern political manifestation of Christianity, which is a manifestation that uses traditional Christian themes to push modern liberal objectives (eg. Feed the poor = govt. takes more in taxes.)

Weight of Glory on November 13, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Does anybody here give a damn that Mitt Romney is a Mormon?

SoulGlo on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Not in terms of the Presidency, no.

Weight of Glory on November 13, 2007 at 12:50 PM

If Mitt takes heat for his Mormanism he should call upon Harry Reid to denounce the attackers. If Reid refuses it will be clear to more then just us political junkies here at Hotair that Reid is a blind partisan hack unwilling to even defend his own religious beliefs for political opportunism. No matter how Reid answers it would be a win/win situation for Mitt.

Then we can tell the biggots to shut up.

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Here is a devils advocate type of “reporting”.

Does Mitt wear undergarments to protect himself from evil? Has he, will he? Does he condone the wearing of undergarments to protect men from evil?

Get it? Unfair, but fair game. If he answers affirmative (which he probably would), then do you want the CINC of the greatest nation on earth depend on cotton to protect himself? Might as well have a voodoo doll in the oval office. Get it? Once again unfair, but it will happen. If he denies he wears or has worn…well, that raises a whole bunch of questions concerning his faith and honesty.
Unfair? You betchum, but worth doing to chip away? you betchum.
Want a few more? That is why he is unelectable, Ted stayed (kind of) away from that (and Mass, is not the “center” of religion), but in this national race, where he depends on the Christian vote, he won’t have it so easy.
He could make a great VP, and that is what he should work for. Then take the step to Pres., after the uniqueness wears off.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Silver lining.

Every time someone criticizes Mitt’s religion, he can trot out John Kennedy and the struggle he had with the anti catholic bigots. Only this time, its the liberals who are the bigots.

As for Hillary, her problem is she is neither male nor female.

Labamigo on November 13, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Does anybody here give a damn that Mitt Romney is a Mormon?

SoulGlo on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Religion wise, I find Mormonism offensive to Christianity. Politics wise, his Mormonism makes me more likely to vote for him based on all the Mormons I’ve known (extremely decent, honest people right out of Norman Rockwell painting).

Of course, not all Mormons are the same (Harry Reid!) but personal experience means a lot.

frankj on November 13, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Doesn’t matter to me. I hear Mormon and I think Osmonds and Atlanta Braves player Dale Murphy. Pretty decent people if you ask me and I would much rather be in their company then say the Dixie Twits or the Jacksons. And let’s not forget that Harry Reid (D-NV) is also a Mormon. So if there is any chance of tar and feathering Romney or being able to use the “Guilt by association” game then it would be by comapring him to Reid.

LakeRuins on November 13, 2007 at 12:57 PM

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 12:51 PM

I don’t believe the “Mormon card” is going to have a significant effect. Democrats are already skittish about being perceived as anti-religion. I think most people tend to view Mormonism through the lens of Mormons they know and those sickly-sweet ads they run on television.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 12:57 PM

SoulGlo on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

We are a select group, that votes on conservative issues. The majority, or at least the swing vote may care…if it is made an issue. And it will be. Most of us have stated we will support whomever is selected, that is not what the swing vote says. You may not care if the President wears a secret undergarment to protect himself from evil (and neither do I) but there are a few Baptists, Catholics, etc. who do.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Does anybody here give a damn that Mitt Romney is a Mormon?

SoulGlo on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

No, not in any way. I don’t care that he’s Mormon.

But that’s gonna put an interesting twist on the classic Presidential campaign question, “who would you rather share a beer with?”

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Or how early or cold it is when they knock on your door.

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 12:59 PM

A crack about Hillary’s gender

Hillary has a gender?
Oh that’s right, she does have a gender, it’s sex that she doesn’t have.

MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 12:59 PM

“who would you rather share a beer with?”

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Obviously with Romney, more for me that way.

MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Does anybody here give a damn that Mitt Romney is a Mormon?

SoulGlo on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Not I.

amerpundit on November 13, 2007 at 1:03 PM

However, that’s not saying A) Others don’t B) Democrats won’t try to make it an issue.

amerpundit on November 13, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Mormons believe:

1. That God was once a human being, like you and me.

2. That if you’re a good enough Mormon (regular Christian doesn’t cut it), then you get to go to the highest level of heaven (there are three levels) after which you will become the God of your own planet and your Mormon wife will have eternal sex with you to populate your new planet.

3. That all churches other than the LDS church are in apostasy.

I understand why Christians think these beliefs are heretical. My question to Christians: does being anti-gay and (recently) anti-abortion trump #1-#3 (above)?

Also, can someone tell me if Mormons believe that Christians will go to outer darkness?

Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Every time someone criticizes Mitt’s religion, he can trot out John Kennedy and the struggle he had with the anti catholic bigots. Only this time, its the liberals who are the bigots.

Labamigo on November 13, 2007 at 12:53 PM

That is a very clever way of dealing with it. If I were Mitt I would call on Harry Reid to make a statement about the attack on their religion and I would compare it to the struggle JFK had with anti catholic bigots. right2bright is assuming that its possible to trap Mitt into giving a straight forward answer about his religion. And I don’t think it will be. If there is anything he has prepped himself to answer its questions about his faith. Knowing Mitt he has about 10,000 prepared answers by now. I can predict with confidence that he will answer gracefully and smartly.

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:05 PM

MB4 on November 13, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Heh.

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 12:57 PM

I think you are right, but it will be a whispering campaign. Try to answer the undergarment without sounding like a weirdo. Do you think the majority of fence sitters want their leader to think they are protected by some undergarment? Reid is not the leader of anything but the Dems. People don’t perceive him as a leader of anything but politicians.
Mitt wants to come out and explain his religion (like JFK did), but even his handlers are saying no.
When he is questioned about whether he thinks Jesus was a polygamist or not, what do you think the reaction will be. If your Mormon, no big deal, but Christians will have a cow when they suddenly realize Bishop Mitt Romney believes Jesus was a married, let alone a polygamist.
It won’t be overt finger pointing, it will be subtle undermining and exposing his religious beliefs, in an untoward manner.
This is for President, nothing gets easy, and nothing is overlooked.
What happens when the majority of his corporate buddies are found to be Mormon, or at least make it look like the majority. It will be the “Mormon Mafia” syndrome.
This is a winner take all, cage fight, with basically no rules.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Most of us have stated we will support whomever is selected, that is not what the swing vote says.

I think most swing voters will be turned off by attacks on a person’s faith. If the Democrats try this tack (and I believe they will only through proxy) the best answer Romney could give would be to simply say that he, like the majority of Americans, finds comfort/purpose/meaning in religion.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 1:09 PM

I don’t remember who had said ” I’m not voting for a minister, I’m voting for a President”, but it was a person who was active in the faith movement. I have decided this is a good point to ponder. If I have issues with Mittens it’s the balancing of his social conservatism credentials past AND present. I could care less about his Mormonism. I still would hope Duncan Hunter would be the nominee but I’m a realist.

MNDavenotPC on November 13, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Also, can someone tell me if Mormons believe that Christians will go to outer darkness?

Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Yes. But I think they will allow us one flashlight each. Each flashlight, however, will require ‘C’ batteries, and we will only have 9-volt…that’s the hell of it. Reminds me of a joke my father told me about hell, the devil, buckets with holes and women without.

Weight of Glory on November 13, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:05 PM

You are absolutely right, if anyone is schooled on dodging questions about religion and their faith it is Mormons. They don’t spend hours everyday before school studying and years on missions to answer straight questions, they are pros…which makes them good politicians.
He won’t be cornered, but it will be exposed.
Chip, chip, chip, chip, away at the fence sitters.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:13 PM

We’ll see. You could be right. I’m skeptical though.

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:16 PM

I don’t care about Romney’s religion… mostly because Mitt Romney isn’t running for President. His ever-present army of handlers, advisors, speechwriters, focus group researchers, and especially his checkbook are really the one’s running. Romney just writes the checks and performs like the slick, empty puppet he is.

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 1:17 PM

I understand why Christians think these beliefs are heretical. My question to Christians: does being anti-gay and (recently) anti-abortion trump #1-#3 (above)?

Also, can someone tell me if Mormons believe that Christians will go to outer darkness?

Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 1:05 PM

I don’t care about his church’s differences from mine.

I favor Fred’s position on gay marriage, stop judicial fiat, because I’m worried about the precedent that sets for judges seeking to abuse it, but I could care less if states choose to marry gay couples.

I’m skeptical of his “conversion” on pro-life issues, his explanation sounds like BS, and he’s a squish on the Second Amendment. His Massachusetts Health Care by Gov’t Diktat turns me off. I don’t trust him on immigration.

Beyond that, he’s too slick and I’m afraid he’ll be Clintonesque and screw the conservative movement when he gets the chance or the polls are in favor of doing so. But I’ll still end up voting him over Hillary. There’s pretty much where I am with Mitt.

Bad Candy on November 13, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Try to answer the undergarment without sounding like a weirdo. Do you think the majority of fence sitters want their leader to think they are protected by some undergarment?

That’s an easy one. Romney could say the following:

“Like most Americans, I believe in God. I have found purpose and meaning through faith, and try as hard as I can to follow the requirements of my faith. The Clinton campaign is trying to smear me by suggesting some of the practices of my church are strange or unusual.

To that I would suggest that there’s nothing usual about faith. Each religion has its own tenets, and some may seem strange or unusual to those who are unfamiliar with the culture or history of that faith.

Practicing the dictates of my faith brings me into a closer relationship with God. I find it unconscionable that the Clinton campaign is using my beliefs – beliefs that over 6 million Americans share – as some sort of political weapon…”

Etc…etc.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 1:18 PM

His ever-present army of handlers, advisors, speechwriters, focus group researchers, and especially his checkbook are really the one’s running. Romney just writes the checks and performs like the slick, empty puppet he is.

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 1:17 PM

So you don’t think the brains behind the Romney campaign is Romney himself? This is a very smart, accomplished man and to argue otherwise is rather foolish IMHO. I suspect you are off the mark with that jab Hollowpoint. I think Fred Thompson would fit that label better. I believe Nixon questioned his intellect and I believe Mary Mattalin and crew have taken over his campaign. No?

Of all the critisisms of Mitt that can be tossed about I never thought I’d here that he is a puppet on a string. Something tells me that one won’t stick.

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:25 PM

MNDavenotPC on November 13, 2007 at 1:10 PM

There are a lot of quotes about who someone votes for, but lets take a look at what really happened.
Carter: tells a story about a rabid rabbit…
Stockton: (a true American hero) stammers…
Mondale: Reagan answers age question with a quip “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”…
Ford: Klutz…
Bush: Read my lips…
History is full of one misquote, one wrong step, one showing that you are not in control or that you are not a “man”, and you are gone.
I don’t think Mitt can live up to the “man” image, after his opponents get through with him.
That is why Rudy is leading, because he comes across as a “man” in charge.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:25 PM

here = hear

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Sheesh, the level of misunderstanding of LDS beliefs on this thread is amazing. I’m grateful for most of you who have said it doesn’t matter.

Here’s an easy question on the “underwear” issue right2bright keeps harping on. The underwear can be viewed as a sort of cross. Literally, will it protect you? Probably not. It’s a symbolic thing, to remind you of who you are. Why do Catholics wear crosses? I think the answer is roughly the same.

As for Christians going to “outer darkness” I think I can fairly safely say that no, you will not.

And I thought every Christian believed God was once a man…. or have I misunderstood the whole “Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine” thing.

To the point of this post: Reid will have to act. He does seem like a good LDS person to some extent, so he’d have to defend Mitt if the attacks came out against Mormonism. It would only make the nutroots hate Reid even more, though. How can they say Mitt cannot be president because he’s LDS, but Harry Reid, their guy, can run the Senate even though he’s LDS? Not even the most hypocritical nutroot can swallow that one (okay, that is probably wrong). But it’s easily enough of an answer to most people.

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 1:17 PM

That’s ridiculous. Romney’s politics may not be to your liking, but to say he’s accomplished nothing on his own is just a falsehood.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 1:30 PM

That is why Rudy is leading, because he comes across as a “man” in charge.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:25 PM

I would say that Rudy’s lead is due to name recognition and how his name recognition incites images of strong 9/11 leadership. Prior to this campaign the name Mitt Romney was largely unknown accross the country. Hence the need for the Romney campaign to spend more then any other campaign.

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 1:18 PM

and 60 minutes says: So you believe that an undergarment made of cotton will protect you from evil…you really think that? And you are counting on that to help lead the country? The greatest nation on earth is depending on what undergarment you are wearing? And Mitt says blah blah blah…
and in closing 60 minutes will state something like this: Maybe we wasted our money on all of the Kevlar for our soldiers, maybe we just needed to send them some pajamas…this is Morey Schaffer for 60 minutes.

See how that sounds, ship is sinking and they spend the next several weeks bailing…and he looks weak.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Well said Vanceone. Well said. I know little about the Mormon faith and quite frankly I don’t care about the details. They mean nothing in regards to presidential qualifications.

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Yes, we can see exactly how the libs will do that: they will hire right2bright. He’s doing just what they want.

Just look at your posts, right2bright. The animosity you have towards the LDS church literally drips through your posts. Why the heck are you incapable of saying you disagree with some aspects of the LDS church, instead of your “well, how will they respond to the idea that LDS people eat babies, kill kittens, and laugh with malicious glee while so doing?” motif?

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM

And Mitt says blah blah blah…
and in closing 60 minutes will state something like this: Maybe we wasted our money on all of the Kevlar for our soldiers, maybe we just needed to send them some pajamas…this is Morey Schaffer for 60 minutes.

See how that sounds, ship is sinking and they spend the next several weeks bailing…and he looks weak.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:31 PM

That sounds like incredible religious bigotry. That is how the majority of voters will view that. That is so over the top that I am almost positive that even the MSM would not stoop that low.

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:37 PM

and 60 minutes says: So you believe that an undergarment made of cotton will protect you from evil…you really think that? And you are counting on that to help lead the country? The greatest nation on earth is depending on what undergarment you are wearing?

You seem unusually focused on this underwear thing. There are a number of answers he could give – simply acknowledging that yes, he believes it does protect him from spiritual evil defuses one of those questions.

Vanecone’s analogy of the cross is a good one, as well.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 1:38 PM

I’m just naive enough to think that if Dems starting talking trash about Romney’s religion (like right2bright’s creepy obsession about our underwear), most people will be incredibly turned off, and that can only help the GOP. Admittedly I’m an idealist.

WasatchMan on November 13, 2007 at 1:39 PM

It’s a symbolic thing, to remind you of who you are. Why do Catholics wear crosses? I think the answer is roughly the same…
Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 1:27 PM

The garment is believed to be a spiritual “shield and protection” against the powers of evil (and against physical harm…

As you can see, it is not the same, and that is what will be pointed out. Now, if you were Mitt, you would be accused of dodging the truth. Your answer causes more trouble. Let’s not get into the Masonic emblems on the underwear. Do you know how irrational people are about Masonic emblems? Goodbye Catholic vote.

The Masonic compass is stitched over the left breast of the Mormon temple garment. In esoteric Masonry I was taught that the compass represents the sacred Goddess. This is because the compass is used to describe a circle in geometry, and the circle is the consummate symbol of the Goddess in Wicca. Hence all coven ritual is conducted in a circle. …the ‘point’ of the sacred coven circle actually is the womb of the high priestess who represents the Goddess. The circle then is a symbol of the Queen of heaven; and the compass is her chief tool.

This is the garbage (but sincere to some) he (Mitt) and his followers are up against.
We haven’t even touched the Jesus is married and polygamist beliefs, and you are already in hot water on hot air.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:43 PM

So you don’t think the brains behind the Romney campaign is Romney himself?
Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:25 PM

”I’m happy to answer any questions people have about my faith and do so pretty regularly,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “Is there going to be a special speech? Perhaps, at some point. I sort of like the idea myself. The political advisors tell me no, no, no — it’s not a good idea. It draws too much attention to that issue alone.”

I couldn’t find the recent column describing how Romney told a reporter that he couldn’t answer questions without getting his handler’s permission first, and that this was a common occurance with him.

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 1:43 PM

That’s ridiculous. Romney’s politics may not be to your liking, but to say he’s accomplished nothing on his own is just a falsehood.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 1:30 PM

That’s not what I said. With respect to this campaign though, his previous record is almost irrelevant since his handlers have re-invented him as Romney v3.1.

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Seems like the more that Romney’s mormonism is attacked, then he or others will get to explain it, which means opportunities to evangelize, which is exactly what the Evangelicals don’t want, which is more attention to Mormons.

If Romney has to make “the speech” then the headlines for many days or weeks is about Mormon beliefs.

So it would be in the best interest of the Christian right to leave the whole Mormon thing alone and make it a non-issue.

Sebastian on November 13, 2007 at 1:48 PM

WasatchMan on November 13, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Looks stupid, I am bringing up an argument that Mitt will have to face. If you don’t get it, close the bathroom door and take care of yourself, you shouldn’t be allowed to send blogs from the bathroom.
If followers cannot defend simple statements that I have brought forth, then how is Mitt going to be selected. I have stated several times, it is unfair, but fair game. This if for keeps.
I could bring up dozens of examples, but concentrating on a couple keeps the discussion focused.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:48 PM

right2bright:

What IS your obsession with underwear? Why do you insist on attacking the LDS church doctrinally? We GET it–you think LDS people are evil. It’s really frustrating, I’m sure, for the other readers of this thread to keep seeing you attack, attack, attack. And then I feel obligated to respond to your smears just so people know that you don’t represent the truth. It’s distracting to the point of the thread. The point of the thread is whether Libs will engage in too much religious bigotry. Just like you are doing.

Do you hate Jews for wearing a yalmukah (spelling)? Do you hate Joseph for his coat of many colors? Do you hate God for requiring the ancient Israelites to wear certain items of clothing as well (such as phylacteries)? Get over your obsession with LDS beliefs and practices. Yes, some liberals will bring this stuff up. And it will make them look just as bigoted as you look. I’ve provided answers to your questions, and you keep attacking. Now you want to bring in masonry. Buddy, let me tell you something: a symbol is a symbol, and can be defined many different ways. A swastika was a symbol of good, until Hitler got his hands on it.

For you to imply that we worship some “esoteric goddess” like you are doing is sheer nonsense, and your weak defense of “I’m not saying this, this is the attack Mitt will face” is baloney. Do you honestly think mason’s are still bugaboos? Does anyone even care, besides you? And your fellow idiots who think Mormons are spawn of Satan? Just DROP it, already. We KNOW you cannot stand Mormons. Can’t you possibly resist bashing us at least once? Is that within your capabilities? I am seriously beginning to doubt it. It’s like pavlov’s dog. Hotair makes a post that mentions Mitt or Mormons, here comes right2bright to trot out his tired, old, long-ago answered canards about how Mormons are the scourge of humanity or some such nonsense.

Just give it a rest.

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Calling out the “bigotry” card is what I said would happen. I am a Mormon victim won’t cut it (Hillary tried on the gender).

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM

When challenged you resort to calling names…that won’t cut it in the race. You have no idea how I feel about Mormon’s and their religion. Playing devils advocate has it’s downside, one of them being skewered for saying what other will say.
I haven’t called you guys names, I have challenged your religion, and when you can’t answer you attack. The people won’t see it as bigotry, it will be subtle but ruthless. Read where I said he should go for the VP, until people can absorb his beliefs. If I was so bigoted, I would not want him in any position. Get it?
I use the one or two examples to stay focused. But I did not expect you guys to fold so quickly…have a little faith.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 1:43 PM

Hollowpoint, just answer two questions. 1). Which candidates have political advisors? You can list them in any order. 2). What is the job discription of a political advisor?

Come on. They all have advisors. You know that. And you know their job is to do exactly what Mitt’s advisors are advising him to do. I mean really… what do you think Mary Mattalin and company do with Fred’s campaign? Cheerlead?

Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:56 PM

So it would be in the best interest of the Christian right to leave the whole Mormon thing alone and make it a non-issue.

Sebastian on November 13, 2007 at 1:48 PM

I somewhat agree, the problem is it won’t be the Christian right, it will be the liberals. They will want to split the Christians from Mormons. Get it? The religious right won’t have much problem, until the left start the campaign, and challenges the right.
Christians don’t have that much problem, kind of a don’t tell policy, but the left won’t let that happen. They will be going to the church leaders, papers, bringing up the things that the Mormons have skewered me for bringing up. The left wants a civil war, and they will fan the flames. Look how the Mormon’s respond to my statements, and that was just a few posts. They come unhinged, they lose their faith, they call names. That is how easy it is for the left to get them to jump.
Hence my comment on Mitt being a good choice for VP, which can launch him into the Pres. in 4 or 8 years. He is a young man.
Remember this blog is how the left will handle Mitt.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Right2bright: Here’s the deal. Lib’s for the most part don’t care about the intricate details of LDS faith. They hate that we believe in Christ at all, and the Bible. Just like they hate other Christians. Just like they hate orthodox Jews, or anyone else who tries to believe and follow God.

They don’t care if Mitt is LDS or Pentecostal. They just will use these attacks because they know people like you will swallow and peddle them whole to try to convince others who DO believe that Mormons are bad, and thus the Hillaries of the world are good.

As for your ridiculous claim I didn’t answer, I did. You then proceeded to bring in other stuff. That’s a never ending cycle. I will never be able to provide a complete answer for you, because you will always say “but what about XXXXX evil mormon practice? You haven’t dealt with that!” And before you know it, we’ve gone through the entire litany of anti-mormon attacks since dawn began.

I cannot possibly convince you, and you cannot possibly just be quiet about your fantasy (which I’m sure you are enjoying) of Mitt being attacked for his faith. He will be fine. He spent two years defending the LDS church. He’s be far the brightest candidate in the race. You will never accept him, but others will be able to see how people of your ilk, whether Liberal or otherwise, are out and out bigots. And yes, I am calling you one. You are doing your best to disguise it, but you are one.

Look at Hollowpoint: he is anti-Mitt, for whatever reason, but he doesn’t attack Mitt for his LDS faith. You attack him solely for his beliefs. What is that, if not the definition of religious bigotry? There’s no allegation that the LDS church will cut off your head, etc etc. like you can make about Islam (arguably). Seriously, LDS people are almost universally admired for their morals, lifestyle, and behavior. Thus, why not leave us alone? You cannot, though. We are no threat to you. Yet you claim we are not eligible to serve, based on our religious beliefs. Thus, you are bigoted.

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 2:07 PM

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 12:51 PM

This is the problem with bigots. They think in absolutes. Mitt will refuse to answer. Just as he has from the beginning.

csdeven on November 13, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Remember this blog is how the left will handle Mitt.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 2:05 PM

They’ve already had their chance in the bluest state in the union. Didn’t seem to hurt him much.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 2:09 PM

right2bright,

All Romney’s supporters play the Mormom victim card? What are you talking about?

But hey. here’s a question for you since you seem to think it really, really matters:

What kind of underwear are you wearing?

That’s a rhetorical question.

Just sayin’.

Buy Danish on November 13, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Hollowpoint, just answer two questions. 1). Which candidates have political advisors? You can list them in any order. 2). What is the job discription of a political advisor?
Zetterson on November 13, 2007 at 1:56 PM

Of course they all have political advisors. Point is, that Romney’s campaign seems more driven by professional advisors, focus groups, polling research and handlers than any actual coherent, consistant political philosophy- he’s been all over the political spectrum, sometimes within the same debate. That’s the long way of saying “too slick”.

About the only issue I can think of that he’s been consistant on is his support for the “assault weapon” ban. About every other position- health care, abortion, spending, immigration, being against Reagan before he was for him- his current position seems based solely on what affects his polling numbers.

When it comes to spending, he claims to be a fiscal conservative, but in order to pander to Iowa he’s for ag subsidies. To pander to Michigan, he’s for corporate welfare for the auto industry and in favor of homeowner bailouts. Talking to gun owners, he’s pro-2nd Amendment, but in favor of a failed gun ban. Talking to social conservatives, he’s anti-abortion and wants Roe v Wade overturned, both exactly opposite of his pre-campaign positions.

These are all signs of an over-managed campaign not driven by the candidate but by professional campaign advisors, right down to aversion to any and all risk.

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 2:12 PM

I somewhat agree, the problem is it won’t be the Christian right, it will be the liberals. They will want to split the Christians from Mormons. Get it? The religious right won’t have much problem, until the left start the campaign, and challenges the right.
right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 2:05 PM

I think you’re correct that the left will try to split the right.

But in the general, if Romney is the Republican candidate, then it isn’t about splitting the right, it’s about making the right stay home. I think the right will support Romney despite his mormonism and magic underwear, if the other option is Hillary.

The bigger question is not what the left blogging does to the Christian right, but how it plays to the middle. (I hate to say independent.)

Sebastian on November 13, 2007 at 2:17 PM

They’ve already had their chance in the bluest state in the union. Didn’t seem to hurt him much.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Sure didn’t help his approval ratings or the election chances of his lieutenant governor in the following election.

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 2:19 PM

As for right2bright’s claim about the “Mormon victim card,” Tell you what. Let me, a member of the LDS church, define our beliefs, instead of you, someone with an axe to grind. I’m more than happy to answer legitimate questions. But when you come out and claim that “This is what they believe,” it is very irritating, because it is like listening to a pharisee describe the early Christian church’s beliefs.

I’m not going to stand by and let you define my beliefs. Or put forth some stuff you claim we believe. That is an attack, and thus, we are indeed victims. If someone wants a legitimate answer to the underwear thing, they can ask. And I answered, sufficiently for most people. I’m not going to go into a discourse on everything about it, because for most people, it does not matter. I’m not out to evangelize or convert Hotair readership, except possibly to support my candidate. But I don’t even do that much–I just defend my faith from attacks.

Most people really don’t care about LDS beliefs. I would love it if they did, but most people don’t care. So I’m not going to provide some long tedious answer that you would still pick holes in. It is just wasting everyone’s time, including mine. There ARE answers to your questions, of course, but this is simply not the place to debate those questions. And I don’t presume to think everyone here wants to read such a debate. You want to inflict one on people, but I don’t believe they want one–so I try to at least correct gross misstatements by you.

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Sure didn’t help his approval ratings or the election chances of his lieutenant governor in the following election.

His lieutenant governor ran a terrible campaign. She had all the charisma of a carp. Listening to her on Howie Carr was painful. Carr was doing what he could to make her seem interesting, but she wasn’t playing along.

Rating an executive based on someone else’s campaign is not a fair measure.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 2:22 PM

One of the reasons I am a Thompson supporter is that he is comfortable in his skin, a genuine man.

Bill C on November 13, 2007 at 12:39 PM

Bill, I don’t have the same sense of Fred. As a 48 year old father of two girls — 19 and 17 — I look at this 65 year old father of toddlers who makes my 78 year old father look young, and wonder about his judgment and his sanity. Who has kids in his 60s? When his youngest is in high school, he’ll be nearly 80.

Just one more thing that reminds me he is not normal (Hollywood).

Jaibones on November 13, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I don’t think any Mormon has beheaded anyone for at least 150 years.

peacenprosperity on November 13, 2007 at 2:23 PM

and wonder about his judgment

Thompson’s run is his wife’s idea and for economical and social reasons only. She is thinking of the extra prestige and speaking fees adding “ex presidential” candidate to his resume. I suspected it for a long time and the thought was reinforced last week when Thompson joked that he probably wasn’t going to be president.

peacenprosperity on November 13, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Does anybody here give a damn that Mitt Romney is a Mormon?

SoulGlo on November 13, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I find it a plus because all the Mormons I have known are as straight as an arrow and very well mannered. However, some Christians freak out over it. I darn sure trust Mitt more than any of the other candidates. He has far stronger moral credentials than any democrat and most Republican candidates. Even Warren Jeffs is not a liar.

The bad news is that being trained to lie and licenced to steal is an attribute most candidates have, and it may be a requirement in order to run the USA.

saiga on November 13, 2007 at 2:29 PM

But in the general, if Romney is the Republican candidate, then it isn’t about splitting the right, it’s about making the right stay home. I think the right will support Romney despite his mormonism and magic underwear, if the other option is Hillary.
Sebastian on November 13, 2007 at 2:17 PM

I think you’re mostly correct, but it if we assume that about 30% of the voting public are straight Republican ticket voters, and only 10% of them stay home because they aren’t enthusiastic about voting for a Mormon, that’s a loss of 3% of voters- a not insignificant number considering how close this election will likely be.

I don’t like Romney. I don’t trust Romney. I probably won’t vote in the general if Romney is elected. However, I don’t want him to lose based on his religion; whatever problems that mainstream Christians may have with the Mormon religion itself, there’s not much there to be worried about politically- as long as they don’t mess with taxes on my booze.

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Utah is the reddest state there is, the MSM will have no problem smearing Mitt.

jp on November 13, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Utah is the reddest state there is, the MSM will have no problem smearing Mitt.

jp on November 13, 2007 at 2:33 PM

And personally, I’m tickled pink by that (Utah being red, not the MSM smearing Mitt). Utah is the only state where Clinton came in third behind Perot.

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 2:36 PM

We’re supposed to look at a poll from almost a year ago??? Bwahahahaha!!!! Why not say “just check out this poll from 1947 and see what kind of trouble we’re in?” At least I got a good belly laugh out of that humorous statement.

Capitalist Infidel on November 13, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM

I am not looking for answers (nor personal insults), I know what is truth and what is not.
This is a blog (go to the top and re-read) about how the left is going to attack your faith.
I said very little, and you had to get personal, which made my point. Mitt’s faith is very controversial, and difficult to defend in the political arena. You are comfortable with it (and so am I, I lived in a Mormon community for years-decades), but others are not. With very few words, you (the generic you) took it personal, with very little challenge you felt threatened, you attacked and played the “bigot” card, along with the “victim” card. It is going to be a long year for those of little faith. I find the fact that when your beliefs are exposed, you become very defensive…you should learn to embrace your beliefs. If you feel the undergarments are right, feel good about it…if you feel Jesus is a polygamist, embrace it don’t hide from it…if you feel the bible is incomplete, tell us “we are reading a text that is not the compete word of God”, don’t hide from it…it reminds me of liberals who won’t use the word liberal. Embrace who you are and be proud in your faith.
Or, it reminds me of politicians who take multiple stances, flip flop on their beliefs, change their statements to fit the audience, and run from their core beliefs when challenged.
Maybe the bigots are the ones who are supporting a candidate that is weak, but is their same faith, just to promote their faith.
Regardless, the left is going to carve Mitt up for dinner.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM

The bigger question is not what the left blogging does to the Christian right, but how it plays to the middle. (I hate to say independent.)

Sebastian on November 13, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Yes, I agree. The fence sitters. I didn’t make myself clear. The left wants the un-decided, just like we do.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Great analysis, Allah.

I don’t like Romney. I don’t trust Romney.
Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Shocka! And I’m positive your analysis isn’t tainted by those sentiments, so everyone should listen to you.

Splashman on November 13, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Regardless, the left is going to carve Mitt up for dinner.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM

I think the left is going to try to carve up whoever the GOP candidate is. The only difference is how they go about doing that. So Mormonism is just Mitt’s dominate, or sensational, Achilles heel.

Their success is going to be on how the Right reacts to it and whether they cave.

Sebastian on November 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Looks stupid, I am bringing up an argument that Mitt will have to face. If you don’t get it, close the bathroom door and take care of yourself, you shouldn’t be allowed to send blogs from the bathroom.

What in the hell are you talking about? It’s a little too early in the day for cocktails, man.

WasatchMan on November 13, 2007 at 3:06 PM

right2bright:

I don’t feel “threatened” or anything by you. I’m proud of my beliefs. I just clarify my beliefs. I am not going to accept YOUR version of my beliefs, because you are incorrect. You always give a negative spin to them, as much as you can, or else just have outright falsities. It is not just in this thread, it is a pattern I’ve noticed time and time again.

I’m not spinning my beliefs, nor have I ever. We are attacked for numerous things, and I try to emphasize the things we have in common with others. You state stuff as LDS doctrine that is not doctrine, so I have to correct you, lest you deceive others. And I fully believe you intend to deceive others about LDS beliefs.

I have never apologized for my beliefs. I am proud to be LDS. I have been to the temple, I fully believe the doctrine. I don’t apologize for wearing the “sacred underwear.” What I object is your characterization of that as “non-christian” or otherwise a bad thing. Is it unusual? Perhaps… but it’s not bad. We have never, ever taught that Jesus was a polygamist–no one knows anything about Christ’s marital status for sure. It is not doctrine in any which way at all. As for the Bible being incomplete, I say it is. So is the Book of Mormon and all the rest of the specific LDS scriptures as well. I’m not going to hide and deny that. But what I will try to do, and the part you don’t like, is that I will try to explain why. We believe in continuing revelation–that the most important word of God is the word of God that He says today. I am not ashamed of believing in that.

I am ashamed that you are so clearly committed to dragging my church’s name through the mud. I don’t know your faith, or what denomination, if any, you belong to. I don’t care. You have lots of beliefs I disagree with, I’m sure. I’m sure many other, non-LDS people on this board would disagree with some of them as well. They don’t attack yours (unless you are Catholic, I suppose), nor will I.

I fail to see how “the libs will attack Romney on his Mormonism, and this is the long, long list on which they will attack him!” really advances anything–unless you agree with those attacks. There’s no point in bringing up doctrinal details, unless you mean to plant your version of LDS beliefs inside readers minds.

I can explain our beliefs that Libs will have issues with FAR better, and far more complimentary, than you can. Shouldn’t it shame you that you know immediately how a liberal religious bigot will act–and that most people here have troubles distinguishing you from them?

There’s plenty of legitimate theological questions to ask about the LDS church. But for political purposes, there is not much point, unless you mean to plant false ideas and increase revulsion to the LDS church. And if that is your goal, you are indeed bigoted. Is it name calling? Maybe–but it’s the truth, isn’t it?

Why would I care about Huckabee’s particular specific religious beliefs that I disagree with? I’m sure there are plenty of them. And the Libs will attack him as well, because he has committed the crime of being Christian. Why do you care enough about LDS beliefs to trot out your negative version of them every time this topic comes up? To “prepare” people for the negative attacks the Libs will use? How puerile. If people have heard something, they can ask. They don’t need an anti-Mormon view shoved down their throat.

Vanceone on November 13, 2007 at 3:08 PM

I think right2bright is correct about what the MSM will do with a Romney GOP nominee. There will be countless “exposes” trying to “explain” Mormonism to everyone, with the most slanted coverage imaginable, making things look as wacky as possible. That will end up hurting Romney significantly, because most people have no idea what Mormonism is, so the MSM will end up defining it.

If Romney was an excellent campaigner, he might be able to overcome this. However, despite his impressive campaign organization, he is way too phony-sounding on the campaign trail. Maybe it’s because of campaign advisors, or maybe it’s just the way he come across. The reason doesn’t matter, I don’t think he comes across personably enough to convince voters the scary things they hear about Mormonism are not relevant.

Clark1 on November 13, 2007 at 3:10 PM

right2bright,

When it comes to Mormon theology, your not ’2bright’, and your not ‘right’ either. Wow, what a misnomer.

Troy Rasmussen on November 13, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Shocka! And I’m positive your analysis isn’t tainted by those sentiments, so everyone should listen to you.

Splashman on November 13, 2007 at 2:54 PM

And which part of my “analysis” was “tainted”? You’d rather I wasn’t honest about my opinion of him when discussing the subject of this tread?

Are you saying that uou doubt that there will be at least some Republican voters who won’t vote for Romney because of his religion? I don’t approve of that, but it’s the reality- the only question is how many and what effect “The Mormon Factor” would have on his candidacy.

That I don’t believe his religion should be an issue doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue with a potentially significant number of voters. As I’ve said before, there are plenty of reasons to disapprove of Romney besides his Mormon beliefs.

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 3:17 PM

As I’ve said before, there are plenty of reasons to disapprove of Romney besides his Mormon beliefs.

I read this far:

And speaking of health, Mitt presided over the opening of the most corrupt and most expensive public works project in U.S. history – The Big Dig tunnel-bridge system.

The Big Dig has been in planning since the late 1970s and broke ground in 1991. Blaming it on Romney is disingenuous hackery of the worst order.

Good grief.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 3:23 PM

The Big Dig has been in planning since the late 1970s and broke ground in 1991. Blaming it on Romney is disingenuous hackery of the worst order.

Good grief.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Then you missed the point he was making about it:

This project killed nearly a dozen people in the 48 months since it opened. When an immigrant woman was crushed to death by a cement-ceiling panel that fell on her as she traveled through one of the new tunnels, Mitt went on TV and said he would get to the bottom of this dangerous, deadly project. But he didn’t. Here was a public safety issue a conservative could have made a presidential-run-reputation on, exposing the Democrat corruption and fixing the problems. But he ignored it, preserving the public health menace for future victims. Instead, he took campaign contributions from international Big Dig contractors.

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Then you missed the point he was making about it:

Sorry, but when you start with “Mitt presided over the opening of the most corrupt and most expensive public works project in U.S. history” it’s clear they were trying to tie its expenses and corruption to Romney. That’s the thesis, and it’s misleading at best.

And the writers are simply wrong on Romney’s response. The review led to the repair of many issues that would not have been noticed otherwise, and the resignation of the hack in charge of the MTA.

The investigation also led to criminal charges for fraud being filed against those who manufactured the concrete, since it found evidence that company individuals had faked some data. And Romney returned those campaign contributions that you speak of.

Did I say this column was misleading? Allow me to amend that. The columnist is a liar.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Hollowpoint on November 13, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Bechtel was the safety engineer when the lady was killed. And this was not a random accident, but a total flaw in the way it was engineered.
Bechtel, a major contributor and supporter of Mitt since the Olympics, was never held accountable (well, a hand slap), and was certainly not relieved of the duties of safety overseer. He didn’t want to “change horses midstream”, the consultant who never had a problem firing people and merging companies, got cold feet with a contributor. You would be a bigot to point out that it was a Mormon contributor, so don’t do it.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 3:44 PM

If Romney gets the nomination, he can’t beat any Dem – might as well hang the election up – the only Repub that could give a Dem a run for their money is Rudy. Like him or not. I’m not saying Rudy would win – only that he could get some indies (and maybe some Dems) to vote for him. None of the other Repubs could do that.

msflea on November 13, 2007 at 3:52 PM

msflea on November 13, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Unfortunately, I am tending to lean in that direction. Others may poll better in the Republicans primary, but Rudy will pull from many areas the others can’t.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Let’s cut through the BS being peddled by not2bright & Hollowpoint about the Big Dig:

This isn’t the first time Romney has tried to take on the Dig. In early 2003 and late 2004, he attempted to create an independent commission to recover the cost of faulty work and investigate tunnel leaks. No dice, said the legislature. In March 2005, Romney petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for an advi sory opinion on how he might legally remove Amorello from the MTA, complaining the bureaucrat was “secretive” and had resisted “oversight of his own board.” The request was
denied for lack of “urgency.”

Apparently, that urgency has now made itself manifest. Within days of Del Valle’s death, the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature took a near unanimous U-turn and handed Big Dig inspections over to Romney. Likewise, the Supreme Judicial Court soon gave Romney the green light to remove Amorello. The chairman chose to resign before he could be fired.

Buy Danish on November 13, 2007 at 4:17 PM

and the resignation of the hack in charge of the MTA.

But not the engineer, he was a Bechtel employee. So they dumped the bureaucrat’s, but kept the campaign contributor.

And show me where Bechtel gave back their contributions. That is a lie…they are a contributor on his books right now.
Oh you mean, like give it back to Bechtel, so they can give it back the next year? I would have no idea about that shell game, but I guess you could claim that the money was “given” back (though you are the only one making that claim).

ECHTEL, STEPHEN D MR. JR.
SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94119
FREMONT GROUP INC./CHAIRMAN ROMNEY, MITT (R)
President
ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC. $2,100
primary 01/24/07
Bechtel, Stephen
San Francisco, CA 94105
The Fremont Group/Chairman Emeritus DREIER, DAVID (R)

Just one of the Bechtel’s, there are others, and they also gave money to the pac’s.

Never once did he mention Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the company the commonwealth has paid $2 billion to represent our interest in the Big Dig.

Through all the billions, through all the years, through all the changes in administrations, Bechtel has been the one constant. For all the governor’s anger at Amorello, he had not a single word about Bechtel’s performance?

Accountability was the order of the day, but no one has been more masterful in ducking accountability than Bechtel. This is the giant engineering company that was in charge of the Big Dig’s quality assurance program, making sure the job got done right and would hold up through the 75-year design life of the project. Now, less than a decade later, the tunnels are falling apart and the word “Bechtel” never passes the governor’s lips?

“The governor has a great deal of respect for Bechtel,” Romney’s spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, said in 2003. “It is one of the world’s finest consulting firms.”By Steve Bailey, Globe Columnist | July 12, 2006

That alone disqualifies him from being a President of anything.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Vanceone,

Thanks for your response. I’m asking these questions out of genuine curiosity.

I understand that in LDS theology, heaven has three levels, and the topmost level of heaven also has three levels. If Christians do NOT to go outer darkness, then do they inherit one of the lower levels of heaven when they die?

Also, what does it take to be sent to outer darkness? I have heard that murder is enough to do it, is that true? What about excommunication from the LDS church?

Thanks!

Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Oh look Danish, he didn’t reprimand his Bechtel friend…get it? Yes he took control, as anyone would, but he left his cronies in position of power and on the mealticket. Get it? He fired a scapegoat, someone that was not on his side, and kept his buddies…his contributors. What you are pointing out is even more embarrassing for Mitt.

right2bright on November 13, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I would have no idea about that shell game, but I guess you could claim that the money was “given” back (though you are the only one making that claim).

Since the hit piece didn’t name contributors, I looked only at the firm directly involved in the accident – those who manufactured the concrete. Romney returned $9000 in contributions.

Although it seems otherwise, Romney is not my preferred candidate. However, it is irritating to see conservatives use a combination of half-truths and insinuations so blatantly. That column (or as much as I could read) was sleaze disguised as legitimate discourse. It’s disgusting to see the depths to which some will go to criticize a political candidate, especially one in their own party.

Slublog on November 13, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3