Video: Mitt makes his case to New Hampshire
posted at 10:41 am on January 7, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Compare Romney here to Hillary last week. Or Obama’s closer to Iowa. They’re all running as agents of “change,” and Mitt here makes a good case against Washington insiders, implicitly McCain and Hillary, and doesn’t seem as scripted and stilted as Obama did. For a while I’ve thought that Romney would make a better president than he has been as a candidate, having the experience of turning things around as well as a broad executive experience generally but lacking the ability to connect and having a flip-flopping history that dents his credibility and opens him up to legitimate attacks. But he’s coming into his own as a candidate now.
On the other hand, at least in New Hampshire, McCain is coming into his own too, to the point that the Romney camp is reportedly dialing down the expectations there. Hillary did that shortly before Iowa, leading to speculation (speculation that turned out to be correct) that she’d seen internal polls showing her taking a beating.
By the way, that appears to be a steeple in the background in the Mitt video. Was it put there…intentionally? Let the steeple-chase begin…
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:
If NH voters were watching the debate last night, they saw Romney trounce his competition. He is polling very well nationally, has more delegates than anyone else, hos tons of money, and is placing well in every race. Romney is in it for the long haul. Go Mitt!
davenp35 on January 7, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Not a steeple. I see an ICBM rising from it’s silo. Subliminal tough on terror message– or, something indicating male vigor.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Sounds like a candidate for Senate or House.
geckomon on January 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM
No, the parachute jump at Coney Island. Shows Mitt’s playful side.
Or, the Eiffel Tower, showing Mitt’s foreign affairs experience.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM
A minaret?
Brat on January 7, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I like the nod of the head at every point he makes in the beginning.
As a self-professed Fredhead, this ad makes me like Mitt a lot more. Good closing argument.
warrenmr on January 7, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Of course. Wonder why I didn’t see it. And blackened, as if after a nuclear strike. I will vote for him.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Romney has to show that he can overcome his weaknesses as a general election candidate and beat the Democrats.
bnelson44 on January 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Nicely done pitch by Mitt. He could package the first half of this spot and go national with it and it would be very effective. This appears like a relaxed but at the same time earnest appeal for ch..ch..ch. change.
BTW, I could SWEAR those trees on the left are forming some sort of cross pattern, if you look really, really hard.
A Huckabee plant??
Always Right on January 7, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Mitt sounds very cogent here, and I definitely trust him more than McCain, however I think Johnny Mac has NH wrapped up already.
FLcapitalistthug on January 7, 2008 at 10:54 AM
In spite of your s/n and painful pun, the trees CLEARLY form a V for VICTORY sign. WAKE UP!
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2008 at 10:57 AM
I’m not sure if McCain has NH wrapped up…. the polls show it tightening.
Don’t forget, Mitt’s got a good ground game. He only lost in Iowa because Huckabee’s evangelical crowds overwhelmed everyone. If he can get out more people, and McShamnesty’s base of independants doesn’t vote for him but rather Obama, then Mitt will win NH.
Vanceone on January 7, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Me too. Rock the casbah!
Brat on January 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Years? Try decades!
He is right it is the same ol’ story. Obama=change? His energy plan, do as little as possible 25 years from now.
For me the issue is energy independence – the one issue that all of the candidates have articulated the importance of. Lip service for an un-nuanced issue.
The candidate that proposes energy independence in less than 10 years (two terms) – and getting us half way there in 5, gets my vote.
That will take some business experience. Knowing that things can be done. It will be unpleasant for Republicans and conservative principals – mandates on industry. However, since they are the only ones who know we are at war, they’ll come around.
Agrippa2k on January 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I too think that Mitt did a good job but Fred is definately part of the “competition”, and there was no trouncing there my friend.. Mitt would be my second choice to Fred being our President. Fredalanche!©
whiskeytango on January 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM
That was strangely compelling. I thought some of his other ads were goofy – the Peggy Noonan for Pres Ad, and I didn’t like the ‘running up the hill ad’ either, but this one is definitely compelling.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I liked what I saw last night and agree on a lot of what he says. Good ad, I wish him luck(is it luck?) in NH.
I still have a hard time looking at McCain and don’t understand his sudden surge.
Conservatives R Us on January 7, 2008 at 11:03 AM
New poster here. It’s about time you guys open up registration again!
I sure hope Mitt wins New Hampshire. It would be a real shame to see him lose twice to 2 different candidates with less conservative credentials. I believe the GOP will be in deep trouble if this happens.
Go Mitt!
OKCubsFan on January 7, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Me too. I want to be independent of the energy that some freaked out Jihadi piece of shit wants to drop on my city in the form of a bomb. Mitt and others better show this NY’er a little more Dr. Strangelove or I’ll have to choose Rudy.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I could support Mitt if he won the nomination. I just don’t think he will. If he loses here and Michigan, he’s done. Lots of the things he talks about in the beginning involve big government.
I’m sort of leaning toward supporting Huckabee. I think he’s a good campaigner and he’s got more experience than most candidates ever had. It’s not because he’s a Christian, but it’s because the rest of the field is just bad. If Huckabee gets more than 20% tomorrow, he’s going to be the nominee.
ThackerAgency on January 7, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Of Course he is using the Luntz graph to craft his message.
No one can say he isn’t an opportunist.
go to :50 in this video and you will see what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjnt2uyOKsc
TheSitRep on January 7, 2008 at 11:06 AM
This is kind of an open question to the forum, are events in IA and NH shaping your choice in the primary? Right now I’m leaning towards Fred or Rudy, but in the case of Fred breaking down before my home state of FL (very possible), I believe I’m gonna go with Rudy with electability a main focus of my decision. I like Fred’s positions a whole lot more, but I feel he may be doomed.
I don’t see Romney having a wide appeal, and am basing my decision more and more with an eye to the general election matching.
Thoughts?
FLcapitalistthug on January 7, 2008 at 11:06 AM
McCain is polling well because the media is pushing him as hard as they can. They want him to win so that even if the Dem loses in the general, a liberal will be in office.
davenp35 on January 7, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I think Fred is more elect-able than any candidate Rep or Dem.
And there is no doubt that he would be the best president.
Fredalanche!©
TheSitRep on January 7, 2008 at 11:09 AM
As a Fred supporter, Mitt makes a good pitch here. Personally, I don’t mind him at all, I just agree more with Fred.
My only worry is how the media is going to treat Mormonism if he wins the nomination. I’m not a Mormon, but I believe to each his own (unless it entitles you to blow people up).
Regardless, I like Mitt a helluva lot better than Huckabee.
conservativejack on January 7, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Romney’s right about McCain. McCain is a big part of the problem in Washington. McCain needs to be shown the door, right along with his good buddy Teddy Kennedy.
AZCoyote on January 7, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Go back and read the first comment to this post. Even if he came in second in the next two states he’d still be doing well in the delegate count and he’d still have tons of money.
davenp35 on January 7, 2008 at 11:10 AM
As for New Hampshire and McCain – should he win, the backlash will be violent. Republicans are confused about Romney, primarily due to the Mormon/Evangelical thing.
We’ve been taking a wait and see attitude – expecting Fred or Rudy to surge in Iowa or make a strong showings in New Hampshire. But McCain NO WAY.
Should McCain do well in NH, Romney should lay off him and let the Republican party and Talk Radio focus on him. They have wasted a lot of time on Hillary, and gloating over success in the war.
Frankly I have issues with Mormon/Romney myself. The impression is that Mormons are devout and committed. However, it is clear that most Christians, Jews, even Muslims are less than hard core.
So if he was a run of the mill Christian how would I feel?
Agrippa2k on January 7, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Good ad. Shows a more relaxed and not defensive side of Mitt. The guy is articulate, bright and slick. He could represent U.S. well.
snowcrash on January 7, 2008 at 11:11 AM
It’s good but I’m a little surprised. If Mitt and his crew knows anything they know strategy and having a “me too” message (in this case, “change”) is something I’d expect them to avoid. There are plenty of options to stake out a unique position that conveys the same “fix stuff” message w/o going completely “me too.”
Here is how I see the candidates positioned today. Thoughts?
Picture a 3×3 matrix
Social/Economic
Clinton Lib/Lib
Edwards Lib/Lib
McCain Moderate/Moderate
Huck Con/Lib
Rudy Lib/Con
Mitt Moderate/Con
Fred Con/Con
TheBigOldDog on January 7, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Mormons don’t use crosses.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Great commercial, on the heals of the debates, I think Mitt might make it closer than it seems. This will not be some Huckabee surprise like Iowa.
One thing, Mitt will be ahead on the delegate count out of New Hampshire whether he’s 1st or 2nd.
jawbone on January 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM
AZCoyote on January 7, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Exactly right, Mitt’s line about the people changing chairs in Washington was especially powerful.
FLcapitalistthug on January 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Oh yes they do…
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I know you like the guy, but reality has to set in sometime. If he is having this hard a time trying to get the nomination, why do you think he would fare better in the general? In a general election I think Romney stands the best chance. He has the money and he can quickly and forcefully defend himself and destroy others (as we saw last night).
davenp35 on January 7, 2008 at 11:14 AM
The promise of “change” is redundant. Of course there will be a change of “hands.” And if the current party in office is replaced by a different party- CHANGE!
I don’t know why every four years someone runs on the “change” platform as if they too are not politicians cut from the same cloth.
geckomon on January 7, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Excellent point. The obstacle to these kinds of changes has been the governments penchant to stifle a company’s ability to turn a profit. Mitt can, perhaps, find a way to move toward getting business to help us become energy independent while still allowing them to turn a profit. Everybody wins.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Where?
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Yeah it all sounds great until the wind changes. Mitt’s weak and if the polls tell him they don’t like something he’ll flip flop. Just Say No to Flip Flops (remember that line from ‘04). Fred Thompson is the only way conservatives don’t get the short end of the stick.
HotAirExpert on January 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Every time he decides to change his mind, he crosses out his old beliefs.
He has more crosses to bear than any Christian candidate.
*
Thanks for the opening…
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM
But he can’t even get most republicans to support him. I’m not sure who has lost more support, him or Rudy, but either way, that’s headed in the wrong direction. But, kudos to you for sticking with your guy. I hope the Mitt supporters can do the same if Mitt only takes second in NH.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 11:22 AM
No prob.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Exactly. Read the 11th and 12th articles of their faith.
11) We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12) We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
You are right, they are fiercely committed and will follow those tenets doggedly.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Just think how interesting the race would be between Romney and Obama. They are both energetic new faces for America to get to know. They also both have unique bio’s, meaning whichever candidate America chooses would make for a first in American history (Mormon or Black candidate). I would love to see a race between those two, and I believe Romney is the only candidate with the energy, intellect, and resources to defeat Obama.
OKCubsFan on January 7, 2008 at 11:37 AM
.
I like Fred’s credentials, but he simply doesn’t any fire in his belly. Good positions and intentions are useless without the energy to implement them. Mitt’s not perfect but I’m beginning to think he’s the best chance the GOP has.
It was a fantastic performance by him last night. I think he gained some votes. If the independents go vote for Obama he may just pull it off in NH. I’m liking Mitt more and more.
Tmaque on January 7, 2008 at 11:42 AM
It’s looking a lot like Romney v. Obama for President and I’m liking Romney more and more. On his worse day, he comes across as good, if not better, as Obama in charisma and the way he communicates to the public. He may get tagged as a flip-flopper, but for God’s sake, he was a Republican Governor over the “People Republic” of Massachusetts. Of course, he was a little more liberal in some ways back then or otherwise, he would have never been the governor there.
Unlike Kerry back in 2004, who was liberal one day, then pretending to be conservative the next, and then back to being liberal the next week. That is the definition of a flip-flopper. Not someone who changes their view once over the course of many years.
Planet Boulder on January 7, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I think people overestimate Obama. Romney, in my opinion, would tear him up like he did McCain and Huckabee last night.
davenp35 on January 7, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I was brought up in the LDS church and I had to memorize those articles of faith for sunday school. I am not active in the church but I have to say that you’d be hard pressed to find anyone with more character than a Mormon.
This is one of the reasons I will vote for Mitt. First and foremost though, I agree with his positions on Islamofascists, immigration and the fact that he’s experienced in business. I have a strong feeling we’re headed for dire straights financially and I’d like to think Mitt would be in office.
Fred? Please, he sounds good but I don’t think there’s any substance to him deep down.
Huckabee? No thank you. I don’t need the preacher thing and his record speaks for itself.
Johnny Mac blew it with me forever with the Amnesty, (it’s not amnesty!!) thing.
Geronimo on January 7, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Exactly! Intellectually honest people would not call Mittt a flip-flopper.
davenp35 on January 7, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I really don’t like this guy. To be honest, i’d rather have 4 years of nutcase Ron Paul than listen to another Clinton- Kerry wannabe liar for 4 years. I really hope he loses bigtime to McCain tomorrow and I’m a Rudy fan.
froghat on January 7, 2008 at 11:49 AM
If I were you, I would too. If Mitt wins tomorrow, he will be riding a wave of momentum that even Rudy might not be able to overcome.
BTW, Fox just finished a nice story on Major Olmstead. The site is over run right now. http://WWW.andrewolmstead.com
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM
–davenp35
‘This tough of a time’???
Who exactly is having an easy time that we should be voting for????
jawbone on January 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM
But only how they interpret it, not how you or I or society interprets it…it is how they interpret “sustaining the law”. Smith (the founder and the writer of those words) proved that when polygamy was against the law, he ignored the law. (kind of a flip flopper, sound familiar?)
Or this upon polyandry (taking another mans wife for his own), from one of his sermons that are considered “God’s words”.
That’s the caveat, they state it, then they interpret it how it fits their system.
We got a glimpse just a couple of weeks ago with the “I saw”, “I was with”, etc. comments regarding MLK. The defenders begin twisting the words to fit the response they wanted.
Mormon’s will fight to the death to defend their version, their interpretation….it just may not fit our interpretation, and who interprets their words? A prophet (Kimball now) who speaks to God.
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Full disclosure – I’m a Mitt-Fan for about 6 months now.
What a phenomenal ad. The shots at McCain are clear and effective without being nasty. Nicely done.
Ludwig on January 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM
That sounds about dead-on. You might consider a third category of foreign-policy….
Ludwig on January 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Was that before he was for abortion or after it? Was that before mandatory government health care or after it? Was that before gun control, or after it? Before he was a conservative or after it?
Always curious as to what facts Mitt supporters are basing their trust on. The facts that he states now, or that facts that he ran on in the past? Curious how you separate those; by time, sincerity, his looks, amount of video he produces, feelings, how do you know what he believes now is what he believes in another 6 months?
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I think this is becoming less and less a factor. The more people get to know him, his wife, 5 sons and their families it’s pretty hard to paint them as members of an evil cult who have a secret plan to take over the world.
They are as American as apple pie.
Buy Danish on January 7, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Right2bright is back out, in full bitterness.
You sound like Hillary looking at the latest poll numbers, right2bright. Plus, I see you are misquoting LDS scripture again, in your usual dishonest attempts to bash the LDS faith.
Grow up.
Vanceone on January 7, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Not trusting that he has perminently changed his mind on abortion is more irrational than believing he will change back. I’m always curious why the Romney-haters always assume the worst.
davenp35 on January 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I missed the last general Conference. What was it Spencer W said in his address?
Truly an American faith.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I thought it was a good ad. He looks less uptight than he usually does in his other spots.
Tacitus on January 7, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Then show me where I mis-quoted. My two references are incorrect? Show me.
You are saying that Smith was not a polygamist or that it was not against the law?
You rail against me, then show no proof.
Let me ask you straight up, and we will see how honest you are. Were my two quotes (Doctrine and Covenants 132:62-63 and Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, pp. 13-14) accurate?
*
Did Smith ignore the law? That was the main thrust of my comment. Are you going to find some adjective that was incorrect? Going to find my use of the word “interpretation” not totally accurate. Or will you stick to the facts, your founder ignored the law of the land, yet stated he would obey it.
I would say you are in a quandary…
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Not assuming the worst, that is the problem. With Mitt you have to assume, he has changed his mind often.
You only mentioned one change, I mentioned several.
Are you assuming that he is what he is now, or is he just telling you what you want to hear?
Who is the one relying on assumption?
And you are assuming that not supporting Romney makes a person a hater. Another assumption. I have stated again and again, he is not leadership material, he needs to grow up as a leader. Put him in as VP or a cabinet post and lets see where he really stands on the issues you are assuming he believes in.
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Lets not ruin another thread by feeding R2B’s justification for her gibotry.
Please?
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 1:08 PM
There he goes again looking Presidential, sounding Presidential, behaving Presidential, and fortunately having the substance and policies to back it up.
Tim Pancoast on January 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Romney = Solid
Tzetzes on January 7, 2008 at 1:17 PM
You brought up the faith card. And now I show where your statements were not supported by history and you want to run.
How about you showing me where my quotes were inaccurate (because you can’t), don’t call someone out, make a false statement, then run and hide.
Vanceone, where did I misquote…apology from you? Naw you just throw bombs.
CS made a statement, which I proved as being historically a lie.
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Maybe you can answer…which policies? The policies that he adhered to before he ran for president, or the policies he says he believes in now.
And if it is the present policies, what gives you the faith that they won’t change again in another 6 months…because they are what you want to hear?
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Mitt Romney talks pretty, but so did others before him from Massachustees like John Kerry and Michael Dukakis. That Romney talks pretty does not mean that he bested the candidates in the debates in terms of substance; he didn’t. Nor does the fact that Romney talks pretty make him Presidential; if it did, there would have been a President Kerry and might even have been a President Dukakis.
In my view, Romney can follow on military matters, national security and foreign affairs, but does not have the knowledge and experience with which to lead concerning those critical subjects. Saying, as Romney did, that he did not say anything in support of the surge in Iraq when John McCain was out front and vocal because he (Romney) was governing a state was substantively quite weak.
Phil Byler on January 7, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I will ask again, now that you called be basically a liar. Where did I misquote?
Let’s live up to your faith, and either correct me or apologize. What I stated was fact, that is what the two-faced Joseph Smith said.
You accused, now back it up. In fact you have often made that accusation, and when I challenge you, you fall silent.
You do not represent your faith very well…I can see why you support Mitt.
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Where’s the HA post updating the presser that was supposedly going to sink a candidate today? The headlines show that it was a book promo against Mitt/Mormons. With all the speculation on Friday on who started it and who would fall, I expected something.
AverageJoe on January 7, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Bryan hit the nail when he said “better president than candidate”
true true indubitably true
Drunk Report on January 7, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Why are we discussing a candidate who is half asleep and clearly not that interested; another who is often nothing more than an old school GOP blow hard and mean spirited liberal sympathizer who pillages the fact he was a POW; another who preaches the Christian message of respect only to trounce on anyone who challenges his policies and experience not his person all the while he obfuscates every question thrown at him; and another who’s only phrase is 9/11 right after he says “I do” for the next time?
They are all flawed!
The only two left are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Only one of them is sane. The other could be one of the brightest men we have ever seen in a campaign. Do you think he would embarrass his party or country by anything he says or will do? He’s flawed people. So what? Go look at this record not his past rhetoric running is MA! He is not conservative enough for you? His words ring hollow? Then why does Judge Bork support him on judges? Why does Tancredo support him on immigration? Why does the National Review support him overall? … He is certainly winning me over from the rest and his efforts last night are sealing the deal. Stop moaning about the past–the libs are going to kill us if we don’t start supporting ideas for the future.
surx on January 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM
*sigh* Right2bright, if you had even LOOKED at your quote from the Doctrine and Covenants, you will note it does not mention Joseph Smith in your quotation; it is more general. Your version implies that the revelation only applied to Joseph Smith himself, which is fully wrong.
As for Joseph Smith disobeying the law: Until the Reynolds case in the late 1800’s, it was an open question whether or not a religious edict under the first amendment allowed a law to be disobeyed. That was long after Joseph Smith was killed by your spiritual forefathers.
And you STILL haven’t the faintest idea who the current LDS leader is; you keep referring to Spencer W. Kimball, who died in 1985. You are over twenty years behind, moron. I call you that because I’ve corrected you on that before–I’ve TOLD you that Kimball died back then.
I am sure glad that I don’t judge Lutherans based on the major one I know of: right2bright. If I did, I’d conclude very easily that Lutherans were a bitter, self-righteous pharasitic bunch who know everything, or think they do. The kind of men who would kill you as soon as look at you.
But Lutherans are good people; I don’t know how right2bright manages to stay in that denomination. They preach about “loving your fellow man” and he or she clearly has no love at all.
Vanceone on January 7, 2008 at 3:47 PM
right2bright,
Both of your quotes regarding the Mormon Church are inaccurate.
Quote 1: You have misquoted the Doctrine and Covenants, inserting Joseph Smith’s name where it does not exist in the original, and leaving out part of verse 63. The correct quote is here: http://gospelink.com/library/doc?scrip_doc_id=1563
Quote 2: Joseph Smith never said this. You are quoting from a talk given by Jedediah Grant, not Joseph Smith.
EyeSurgeon on January 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM
As a Christian I certainly would not vote for the church of mormon candidate Romney. Who wants to bet another 100 million Christians feel the same way? If you want to divide the republican vote and guarantee a Hussein Osama presidency vote Romney!
HaraldHardrada on January 7, 2008 at 4:02 PM
You state:
I quoted:
How did you miss that? “sigh” nothing could be more obvious…look at the name Joseph Smith does that resemble Joseph Smith?
Remember what this is about. CSDeven quoted Smith as saying this:
Now focus, Smith was not obeying, honoring or sustaining the law. He was taking child brides, more than one, he was marrying women that were already married (forget about the “sealing” ceromony, he had sexual intercourse with them)
He wrote he would follow the law, while he was breaking the law, you don’t get that? I think you do. And it scares you, or you would admit the obvious.
I don’t care who the new prophet is, if what I said applies to Kimball, doesn’t it apply to the current president? No, or yes. Can they, by edict of talking to God, not follow the law like Smith and Brigham Young?
No, you have never told me that, that was the first mention of Kimball, instead of Hinckley. The last (and only)mention of Kimball (by me) was when he had the revelation to allow blacks the same identity as whites. Nice try in changing the argument.
So now back to what the post was really about…
It is obvious that Smith, while posting his “we will follow the government”, was in fact breaking the law and was well aware of it.
So, CSDeven little statement, is wishful thinking. The Mormons will follow what the president says to follow…remember, you were the one who said you would give up your 14 yr. old daughter to the LDS president if he said he spoke to God and God told him to “take” your daughter (of course you would ask God and feel it in your heart to make it right). Even you would break the law…
So breaking the law is wrong, unless the Mormon’s do it.
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I’m glad Romney’s camp is “dialing down” expectations. I was afraid he’d concede if he lost, and I feel like he’s conservatism’s last best hope in ‘08 (besides Fred, but he’s a long shot)
Micheal on January 7, 2008 at 5:22 PM
right2bright,
No, they were not.
Both of your quotes regarding the Mormon Church are inaccurate.
Quote 1: You have misquoted the Doctrine and Covenants, inserting Joseph Smith’s name where it does not exist in the original, and leaving out part of verse 63. The correct quote is here: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132http://gospelink.com/library/doc?scrip_doc_id=1563
Quote 2: Joseph Smith never said this. You are quoting from a talk given by Jedediah Grant, not Joseph Smith. Please check your references before just grabbing them out of an anti-Mormon pamphlet and repeating them here.
Are you honest enough to admit that both of your quotes are inaccurate?
EyeSurgeon on January 7, 2008 at 5:30 PM
(I’ve been a reader/watcher here for a _long_ time, but this is my first post.)
I am a Fred supporter. However, Romney looks really good lately and he is coming into his own as a candidate. Maybe a Fred/Mitt ticket would work well.
Theophile on January 7, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I find it strange some Christians would vote for Obama, who is pro-choice and even though calls himself a “Christian”, belongs to a church with a pastor who is a race-baiter in the mold of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and a church no more Christian than LDS, over Romney who is Mormon, but is pro-life and represents Christian values more than Obama does.
This is going to be an interesting election to say the least if it is Romney versus Obama. It may come down to a choice of voting for labels (Obama) vs. values (Romney).
Here’s a little support for my argument.
The Faith of the Centurion
Matthew 8:5-13
5. When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
6. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”
7. Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”
8. The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10. When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
11. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
12. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
13. Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.
Planet Boulder on January 7, 2008 at 6:22 PM
I’ve been for Mitt from the beginning. He’s had his moments of downfall(aka MLK march, possible flip/flop) but he seems to be the most qualified, if nothing else, candidate for the job. And he may be the only one that can beat out McCain in the coming primaries. Research his business record. He’s amazing.
NDConservative on January 7, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Surx, right2bright, Theophile, Vanceone and others: the problem for me with Romney has zero to do with religion but is what I stated in my 2:40 PM post — that Romney may talk pretty, but pretty talk is not substance and that with respect to critical areas of the President’s job, Romney is lacking. What I wrote was:
“Romney can follow on military matters, national security and foreign affairs, but does not have the knowledge and experience with which to lead concerning those critical subjects. Saying, as Romney did, that he did not say anything in support of the surge in Iraq when John McCain was out front and vocal because he (Romney) was governing a state was substantively quite weak.”
Romney is not the answer.
Phil Byler on January 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Supply sider Jack Kemp has endorsed John McCain.
Phil Byler on January 7, 2008 at 7:09 PM
At first I was a Thompson guy, but his numbers dwindled so much it’s ridiculous. McCain is a dinosaur and way to compromising to Dems on issues like illegal immigration. I like Huckabee’s social values, but his leadership that great and communication skills are not very clear and concise. I like Guilianni, but I thought he about dropped out of the race in the past few weeks and hasn’t impressed me lately. That only leaves Romney, who seems to be getting ganged up and pounded on by everybody, but keeps coming out smelling like a rose.
He reminds me of the saying:
“the tall nail get pounded down”
It’s almost like he’s running “a gauntlet” or getting a “baptism by fire” from the other Republican candidates who constantly keep going after him in mass. As I remember from history, Reagan constantly got treated this way because he stood for something different when he was trying to get nominated as the Republican candidate and he came stronger than ever. Hopefully, if Romney survives this “battle royale” between him and the other candidates, the Democrats won’t stand a chance in the general election.
Planet Boulder on January 7, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Here let me help you understand, if you think the essence is wrong then you can’t read. There were many changes to the D & C’s so let’s use the most recent.
Now if you think “he” means everyone but Joseph Smith, then I stand corrected. But if he includes Joseph Smith (and that is who we were talking about) then you stand corrected.
You are right about the other quote, it was not Smith that delivered the message, but another apostle speaking for God. It was given by another “prophet”, but still considered the word of God. So you are saying that that quote should be struck from Mormon history, and that it is inaccurate? Or are you saying I attributed to the wrong man, therefore it is what? Not right, is right? Was the quote (not the attribution) correct? Is it Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, pp. 13-14) or not?
So you are saying both my quotes are not part of Mormon history, that the essence of what I quoted is wrong?
Joseph Smith is not a he, or a him, and that because I mis-attributed the quote to Smith and not another Apsostle then my premise of Smith and Young were denying the law was wrong?
Here is the ultimate question, all of you Mormon’s are dancing around…posed by CSDeven (not by me)…was Smith and Young breaking the law, while pronouncing they would follow the law.
You guys can dance…
right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 9:08 PM
PlanetBoulder: McCain a “dinosaur”? What is that suppose to mean? That he is the oldest candidate? True, but he has been the most active campaigner in New Hampshire and elsewhere; and have you seen his 95 year old mother? What you call “dinosaur” can also mean experience, which McCain has.
I ask you: who was right for years about Iraq, first in criticizing the “light footprint” strategy as leaving too few troops to do the job and then in supporting General Petraeus and the surge when the Democrats were declaring defeat and Republicns were either hedging their bets (like Senator Lugar) or staring at their shoes (like Romney)? Iraq presented a test case of who really knows his stuff, and that person was shown to be John McCain.
You do not get to Romney by the process of elimination. It is not a matter of running a gauntlet. Romney has been running negative as much as anyone, and Romney simply does not have the experience and knowledge when it comes to military matters, national security and foreign affairs that a Commander in Chief should have. In contrast, John McCain has the endorsements of former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig; that’s called having recogniuzed experience and knowledge.
Phil Byler on January 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Lol. I see that right2bright is in full panic mode.
r2b,
Here’s a ****newsflash**** for you!:
Joseph Smith is not on the ballot.
Buy Danish on January 7, 2008 at 10:03 PM
right2bright,
Gee, thanks so much for helping! Yes, sadly, it was my inability to read that forced me into a career in medicine. The shame!
You asked if your quotes were accurate, and insisted they were. Obviously, they were not.
Misquoting scripture and putting words into Joseph Smith’s mouth that he never said constitutes “accurate” quotes, in your book? You want to misquote, twist, and manufacture quotes from Joseph Smith, and claim the “essence” is still true, even when you’re caught red-handed?
Is your real name, by chance, Dan Rather?
You have no credibility here.
EyeSurgeon on January 7, 2008 at 11:17 PM
r2b is back!
Darn. So much for that Christmas wish.
Stupid Santa.
sulla on January 8, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Oh, Buy Danish, you are soooooo naive….
the Mormons are bankrolling Romney to go the distance, and keep enough delegates to force a brokered convention.
Then Joseph Smith, who has been biding his time in L. Ron Hubbard’s time machine/hyperbaric chamber installed by Xenu under the Nauvoo Opera House, will be revived, and ride into the convention on a white horse and be declared the nominee by acclamation.
Mormons. Is there nothing they CAN’T do?
sulla on January 8, 2008 at 1:47 AM
I heard somewhere that if McCain won he would be older going into office than Reagan was when he left. Somewhere around 72-73 years old. The only credible knock on Reagan when in office was his age and possible deteriorating health towards the end. You don’t think that will be used against McCain constantly if he got the nod in the general election?
McCain gets an “F” in my book over something just as critical as Iraq and that is illegal immigration. If he was in lock-step with Ted Kennedy in their plans for amnesty for illegals, which he was last year, then he flunked out badly in my opinion of being the next President. I want someone who will represent American citizens as our next President, not illegal immigrants. The only major dispute that has turned me off with Bush after being a longtime supporter of his over the last 8 years is illegal immigration and I don’t want to elect a “clone” with the same ideology on this issue to take his place and shove amnesty down our throats for the next 4-8 years.
Tom Tancredo endorsed Romney because of the remaining candidates, his stance was strongest.
Planet Boulder on January 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Comment pages: