Mark Halperin: Two GOP sources say it’s Romney; Update: NYT says it’s Romney or Pawlenty
posted at 11:26 pm on August 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
So much for Pawlenty versus Lieberman. Halperin’s posts have been known to disappear inexplicably, so here’s the thumbnail for posterity just in case this one floats off into the ether before morning. Exit question: Fear the Reaper?
Update: You know who he could have picked who would have totally locked this election up for us?
Update: The Times says Ridge and Lieberman have at last been eliminated and the shortlist is down to Romney and Pawlenty — with David Petraeus being mentioned in a naked attempt by Team Maverick to steal a little buzz from Obama’s VP announcement tomorrow. New theory, then: Halperin’s sources are two pro-Romney partisans within the party who are trying to make life uncomfortable for McCain by putting Mitt’s name out there now and stirring up some excitement for him.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Heheheheheheh…..
The Ugly American on August 22, 2008 at 12:57 AM
I’m sure the Massachusetts thing is only one aspect. I won’t deny that there are those for whom the religion issue is a dealbreaker, but I believe the number is smaller than SaintOlaf asserts.
I suspect if Mitt was at the TOP of the ticket this would be more of an issue. they can entertain the idea that McCain still hates Romney and will treat him the way Johnson abused Hubert (”Who?”) Humphrey.
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 12:59 AM
So you don’t like him, not because he is Mormon, but because he didn’t claim certain Mormon doctrines on TV? Is that fair to say?
So your concern is boiled down to what the world thinks of a portion of a political party? Color me skeptical. (Yes, political, CR is the label you chose). Besides, he would represent the VP office, and in any religious capacity, would be Mormon, not Evangelical. If people don’t know enough about religion to know a difference, his behavior is certainly not going to cast any shame on Evangelicals. I mean his family life, etc, is better then most Evangelicals can exhibit. So that seems hardly a legitimate concern, to be honest.
Pretty much everyone thinks they have the way, right? I mean, that’s why they follow that religion I hope.
This is what I really don’t understand. I’m pro-life. Don’t pro-lifers want people who change their position to become pro-life? Isn’t that the direction we want it to go? Why isn’t a pol changing to pro-life, as Bush 41 did, and Mitt did, not a good thing?
Spirit of 1776 on August 22, 2008 at 1:01 AM
It’s T-Paw, baby.
MikeZero on August 22, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Not a political party, an entire religion!
SaintOlaf on August 22, 2008 at 1:04 AM
I think Pawlenty will grow on people, particularly after the first debate.
Plus he and Mac go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back
Squid Shark on August 22, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Sulla, I can’t get a firm grasp on what percentage that might be. On an individual level, I can’t imagine it being that high. I don’t begrudge anyone any particular reason for casting their vote, but I really think this is one of those things that has to be mobilized. Ie Mitt seems an engaging guy (I didn’t like him at first, really grew on me), so for non-liberals to maintain an aggressive dislike for him, it seems to me it would have to be organized. What better way then churches? Since that infrastructure is already there, that means that % could be high after all. I don’t know. I am a little surprised by it.
Spirit of 1776 on August 22, 2008 at 1:05 AM
What makes you think he’s changed his position on it?
His word?
Also…tell me what Bush 41 did to end abortion in the U.S.?
SaintOlaf on August 22, 2008 at 1:08 AM
You said the Christian right. The “right” is political ideological reference, not Christian reference.
You are worried about shadows, it seems to me. It seems extremely unlikely someone would be influenced be a VP’s religion to misconstrue the bad aspects of it onto another theology. It’s a bit of a stretch.
It seems more likely to me that some in the Christian right want to ostracize Mormons. Ostracize, Minimize, and I imagine they hope to absorb their political power again, in the same way Mormon have been voting for Christians because of similar social values.
Spirit of 1776 on August 22, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Sigh.
aero on August 22, 2008 at 1:08 AM
He supported Reagan.
Well, one example, he nominated Clarence Thomas. Who, while not an anti-abortion activist, is a clear thinking judge who naturally would come to a ‘bad law’ conclusion on RvW.
Besides, you don’t personally need to believe something (not saying Mitt doesn’t) to push it politically. Madison didn’t believe a Bill of Rights was necessary in addition to the Constitution, yet because of his constituents concerns he was like a relentless bulldog to get those amendments past.
Spirit of 1776 on August 22, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Funny, I don’t even know what religion McCain is. If it’s not Radical Islam, don’t really care. I could even swallow Scientology or Kaballah if the alternative was 4 to 8 years of blame America first liberalism and their guy called himself “Christian”.
Marcus on August 22, 2008 at 1:15 AM
I doubt it’s more than 5-7% of the CR (high end), and that’s probably more regional than religious. In states (California, Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho) where there’s more LDS, the interfaith exposure is greater, and the tolerance is higher.
If I were to guess, the religious hit would be chiefly in the Southern states – those where Romney came in THIRD, rather than first or second like he did everywhere else – but that the overall drop won’t be big enough to cost McCain the state.
Huckabee is the big factor. If he refuses to have anything to do with Mitt even as VP, that will reverberate with the Huck’s Army crowd. If he ultimately decides that Obama is the greater threat and rallies behind the McCain ticket, then Mitt’s religion will be negligible with the GOP base.
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Bush 41 didn’t end abortion in the U.S., neither did W or Reagan in fact.
If they really wanted to they would have.
It’s called the Human Life Amendment.
They have been stringing Christians along for a awhile.
Remember that Christians only came back to the republican party decidedly with Ronald Reagan.
Nominate a Mormon or a pro abortion VP and watch it all fall apart.
Jack Kemp..Bush 41 are examples of that….next time it’s the Constitution Party we take over.
SaintOlaf on August 22, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Huckabee will get with the program if it’s Mitt. His message is that he’s voiced certain constituents’ concerns, not about Mormonism but about flip-floppery. Actually, it might serve him better to have Mitt as VP rather than an independent “Christian leader” in a position to eclipse other competitors. On the other hand, if Mitt falls on his face somehow or is seen to have hurt the ticket, that could also help Huck, even if he doesn’t believe that he might someday be at the top of a ticket.
CK MacLeod on August 22, 2008 at 1:25 AM
It is going to be a woman.
This is all head fakery.
mylegsareswollen on August 22, 2008 at 1:28 AM
To be honest, I’m disappointed with this exchange. I ask you about Mitt and you are saying that you are upset because the HRA hasn’t passed. And then you equate Mitt with a pro-abortion VP (again with addressing my other comments)
Because, um, why again? Because the “Christians” voted into office didn’t get a specific admnt done and it’s Mitt’s fault? You complain the R party strings along Christians and a pro-life convert is going to shatter that?
Boy just think, if we get a Fiscal Con on the ticket, we might lose Fiscal Conservatives (but only if he’s Mormon!)
Spirit of 1776 on August 22, 2008 at 1:30 AM
I can’t wait for the Veeps to be picked, so we can move on to something else in this election to get entirely sick of. Then the next, and so on.
Weebork on August 22, 2008 at 1:31 AM
I don’t really know that Huck wants to be in politics actually. I think his pattern is to elevate his profile. I think he is interested in making $. So I don’t think he will cross McCain this election, especially as McCain’s numbers go up.
Spirit of 1776 on August 22, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Again…what makes you think he is pro-life?
Because he says so?
The man even rejected his own religion jus because he thought he could get to power..
It wasn’t all that long ago that he was instituting $50 co-pay abortions in his socialist medicine healthcare plan..
What a miraculous conversion on the issue….at age 60….just in time to run for president!
SaintOlaf on August 22, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Can I make a bold prediction?
Romney is chosen as VP. McCain wins the election, then pulls a Tim Russert. Then we finally get Romney as our President. I guarantee millions of Mormons around the world will be praying that to happen!
iamse7en on August 22, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Anyone will do other, than OB! Please!
bucko36 on August 22, 2008 at 1:49 AM
That’s the reason I believe everyone who says they are pro-life are pro-life. I don’t follow people around to see if they go to abortion clinics.
He hedged on somethings that were irrelevant to make them irrelevant in the campaign. Put it this way, if he had said whatever you think the truth is, he would have offended you equally, but “misrepresenting” Christianity. So the fact that he shaved off the objectionable parts PROVES your fear wrong. He represented your ideology, not his, if your charges are to be believed.
Surely you can come up with something better? The 50 was pre-existing.
As we age, we get wiser. Prov 16.21.
—
Your just confirming the view that many conservatives have. That the pro-life movement doesn’t care about pro-life as much as it cares about theological purity within the party. It’s more important that a nondescript Christian with no particular pro-life advocacy be chosen then a Mormon who has cemented himself politically into pro-life position.
One would think the pro-life movement would welcome converts, but it’s not true as we have been shown.
SaintOlaf on August 22, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Spirit of 1776 on August 22, 2008 at 1:52 AM
It kind of amuses me that people (from RNC big-wigs down to HotAir and FR commentators) think that their preferences, – even with good reasons why- will matter to McCain when the time comes to announce. When decision time comes, it will be a snap decision, depending on how he feels, how much he REALLY wants to be President at that particular moment.
Will he pick a useless mediocrity hoping to lose as few ‘independent-moderates and/or security minded, but otherwise liberal democrats’ votes as possible?
Will he pick a very slightly conservative (that he can bully into mediocrity) as a very slight bone to throw to conservatives?
Or will he throw caution to the winds, pick the guy he really wants; Fellow ‘maverick’ Lieberman? and as is his nature, poke the entire Republican party right in the eye.
He will make his final decision based ONLY on what his mood is at that moment… Not for the good of the Nation, not for the good of the Party… Probably not even for his own actual political benefit; Most likely just to answer to his own inner needs/ego.
In the very unlikely event that he picks a REAL conservative with a strong character, I’ll HAPPILY eat my words, and (figuratively) kiss the posteriors of every McCainiac in the place
LegendHasIt on August 22, 2008 at 1:53 AM
As good a choice as Romney is, it cannot be him. The South does not like Mormons.
Pawlenty.
drjohn on August 22, 2008 at 8:28 AM
YOU MEAN
McCain/Shot-’o-Whiskey ‘08 ?!
Lockstein13 on August 22, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Are the media all stupid? Staking out possible candidates houses makes for interesting TV, but a better, simpler, and more accurate way to find out who the VP nominees are is to find out where the Secret Service has the two VP protection teams staged (Washington) and report what cities they depart to.
The Secret Service will be on scene and have a wall of security in place before the announcement is made.
meci on August 22, 2008 at 8:46 AM
McCain has Steve Schmidt running his campaign now Schmidt learned his politics at the Karl Rove School of Strategy. If you wonder why McCain has taken off, part of it is Schmidt. (I give McCain credit for Saddleback.)
Schmidt is supposedly the kind of guy who can sit McCain down and say, “How much do you really want to be president? if it’s the most important thing, then Candidates A, B, and, no matter how much you favor them, won’t help and might hurt.”
“And candidates X, Y, and Z would not hurt, but could help solidify the base and appeal to Hillary Dems and independents skeptical of Obama.”
“Do you want to win or not?”
I assume Cindy McCain might weight in at some point, too, given all the work she’s done for the campaign.
“Do you want to win? Then your options are: X, Y or Z.”
And no, I don’t know who A, B, C, X, Y or Z are, but that would presumably be the analysis presented to McCain.
Wethal on August 22, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Great! I went to sleep early last night and missed this.
Romney would be the best.
Hillary would guarantee a win. But then we would have to actually deal with her for a long time.
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 9:05 AM
I’M WITH MITT!
madmonkphotog on August 22, 2008 at 9:10 AM
As between Ugh and Yawn, McCain hopefully picks Yawn.
He is blowing it big time by not naming a woman, however. Obama is having a hard time bringing around women over 40, who normally tilt heavily Democratic.
james23 on August 22, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Sarah Palin!!!! Pick Sarah, John!
William Teach on August 22, 2008 at 9:24 AM
As an evangelical christian, I want Mitt..
he was the one guy I was hoping for through the entire primary..
Fred! never woke up except for one time during a republican debate.. (I won’t play these hand games)
Besides, what are the Vegas odds of John McCain living out his first presidential term
DaveC on August 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM
I don’t remember Romney ever, ever, ever bringing up his religion. The huckster always does!
To say, as Terrie (at 12:56 am) does,
As an evangelical, I promise you that many will never vote for a Mormon anywhere on the ticket.
makes me cringe! Substitute Jew, Catholic in it’s place and you’ve nailed it. But then maybe he/she feels the same way about them.
We all know why the evangelicals continue to bring this up and it has nothing to do with political office.
St olaf also displays his hatred on every post. If it was up to them, they would be happy to have the extermination order back on.
Bambi on August 22, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Sarah Palin could not go toe to toe with Putin. She’d be eaten alive or completely snookered faster than Condi Rice was.
McCain not only needs someone with economic and conservative credentials, he also needs someone who could handle Putin, North Korea, al Qaeda, Hizbollah, etc., since the VP would be one heartbeat away, someone who could convincingly go out and make the administration’s case.
Sarah Palin could scare kids on Halloween if she wore a witch costume, but that’s all.
Wethal on August 22, 2008 at 9:37 AM
I don’t think he will represent Christianity. If anything it should gives us the opportunity to point out Mormonism’s serious errors.
It’s not a fact that all of Christianity considers Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox christian religions. They promolgate heresies.
Not this christian. I disagree strongly with Mormonism and share the gospel to those who believe in it. Did you see Fox New’s analysis of the Republican debate? When Romney spoke of faith and Jesus Christ, the approval rating went off the chart. That bothered me greatly because it showed that those who were impressed knew nothing of what Mormonism teaches of Jesus Christ. But it also shows that you are simply wrong in making this statement. Most christians are either ignorant about Mormonism or don’t care.
Disagree. I’m not asking you to list them. I’ve seen you argue it before. I disagreed with you then.
The interesting thing about Romney’s beliefs are that they are consistent with the changing doctrine of Mormonism.
When comparing his slime to other Republicans, the slickest thing about him is his hair.
shick on August 22, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Nope, that won’t work either cause we all know the South despises Northerners as well.
Face it, there’s a certain faction here that will not accept ANY VP choice other than the Huckster. They just won’t admit that’s the only way they’ll guarantee their support.
darury on August 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Romney… please Lord, let it be Romney…..
I can’t believe I might actually be excited over the Republican Pres and VP nominations, but after Saddleback and IF Romney is the man, I’m buying the McCain/Romney t-shirt.
Amy Proctor on August 22, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Romney is the best choice.
Romney should have done much, much better in the primaries.
He is a great man but needs time for this to sink in with the American public.
Those who are against Mormons (in their ignorance) will learn that Mormons are amongst societies greatest citizens. They are very decent people with great discipline. They do nothing but GOOD for society.
Romney is a smart choice. McCain will, hopefully, last two terms and Romney, hopefully, will be well established in eight years and will be a shoe-in in 2016.
Wouldn’t it be great for the Republicans to have a dynasty from 2000-2024 and beyond?
I know, it is an optimistic dream.
Oh, and in the 2016 elections, who would be Romney’s VP choice?
Jindal. So, in theory, Jindal would get elected and serve from 2024-2032.
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM
One of my best friends is a Mormon.
Wait, was that bigoted?
fossten on August 22, 2008 at 10:04 AM
+1
Think_b4_speaking on August 22, 2008 at 10:04 AM
.
To be honest, there’s one or two folks here who will only accept the huckster, and maybe a hundred thousand across the whole country who are too bigoted to vote for a ticket with Romney. Not enough to sway any red state.
Think_b4_speaking on August 22, 2008 at 10:07 AM
If you want to see a clip of Michael Medved answering a caller who tries to shred Mormons. Go to IPerceive.net.
Bambi on August 22, 2008 at 10:07 AM
MikeZero: You should copywrite “T-Paw” -that’s cool!
I will be happy with Romney or Pawlenty, unhappy with nearly everyone else.
Doug on August 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM
They do many good things. But you go to far saying they do nothing but good. Here are the first two that come to mind.
Mountain Meadows massacre
Blood atonement
Not to mention a complete perversion of the gospel.
shick on August 22, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I would be very pleased if McCain selected Mitt. He’s responsible, mature, seasoned, and loyal. I really like his family too.
RushBaby on August 22, 2008 at 10:11 AM
doesn’t he need to for the financial side of this. Plus Mitt is the guy who the CEO’s out there like
jp on August 22, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Not unless you point out how clean and articulate he is.
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Mountain Meadows massacre took place on Sept. 11, 1857. The modern Mormons have no culpability in that event.
Blood atonement is their religious belief. There are worshipers in this country that speak in tongues and handle poisonous snakes as well.
And as for their perversion of the gospel, this is their beliefs. Just as Jews do not see Jesus as the Christ and Christians do. Somewhere in there, there is perversion of belief since both can not be right.
So in closing, the Mormons do MOSTLY good in society. I will change it to read like that.
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 10:18 AM
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Well, since there’s little to no excitement with McCain, let it be his VP who helps to fire people up.
wise_man on August 22, 2008 at 10:21 AM
No that I think about it, your best example of Mormons not doing ‘good’ would have been Harry Reid!
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 10:26 AM
That Halperin post is missing again, but he replaced it with this.
iamse7en on August 22, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Harry is our Crazy Aunt in the Attic with the prison record.
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Is that Rick Warren having a shot with Hillary in the photo?
EJDolbow on August 22, 2008 at 10:31 AM
speaking of Alaska and our Pres. candidates. This is just too juicy.
Ron Paul endorsed Don Young for re-election, the RINO, over the libertarain/limited govt. candidate, Sean Parnell
http://www.rlc.org/2008/08/21/ron-paul-alaska/
Don Young is a scum bag and definition of a RINO.
jp on August 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM
If he picked Hillary it would lock up a loss for McCain. There are people all over America who would walk 10 miles in the snow to vote against Hillary. Trade the entire Republican party for less than a quarter of the democrats? Don’t even think it.
Dollayo on August 22, 2008 at 10:38 AM
If you read my post, you will observe that I said Romney’s church affiliation was not my particular complaint against him; inauthenticity and ideological pragmatism prevent me from supporting Romney.
Mormonism conflicts with the Bible. Evangelicals believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Some Mormons try to represent their religion as a form of Christianity, which it is most assuredly not. As for Jews, there are no greater supporters of God’s chosen people than evangelical Christians.
It is not religious bigotry or intolerance that leads evangelicals to take such a strong stand against any false form of Christianity. Even if you don’t understand or respect their Biblical devotion, it is naive to underestimate their voting power.
Terrie on August 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I’d consider it under a couple of conditions:
1. Bring back Ken Starr
2. Impeach Hillary
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Actually, you clarified my point for me. For a vocal minority, Huck is their Obamessiah and Romney might as well be satan incarnate.
Personally, Romney was my 2nd choice after Fred! and I’ll buy the t-shirt if it’s McCain\Romney. Unlike the Huckster, Mitt had the good graces to bow out early even though he probably could have forced a brokered convention.
darury on August 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I live in the South. The same people who won’t vote for a Mormon, won’t vote for a Catholic or a Jew. Or a black. Bigots are bigots.
Pick the best person, Johnny Mac. We all know its Romney. Let the chips fall where they may.
eaglesdontflock on August 22, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Don’t ignore history. Modern Mormonism holds Brigham Young as a prophet and he greatly influenced what they believe today.
Amazing! You are comparing these different beliefs and saying that they are okay? It’s okay to kill a former Mormon so that their shed blood will cleanse them of their sins. Amazing!
I agree that both cannot be right. But it must not be assumed that “the right” cannot be determined from all the forgeries.
I conclude by saying that no one can come to the Father except through the Son.
Good correction.
shick on August 22, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I would hope that no religion is out there praying for the death of a human being.
highhopes on August 22, 2008 at 10:50 AM
HUGH HEWITT FOR PRESS SECRETARY!!
Brat on August 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I guarantee there are not. I’d be first in line to bitchslap any nutjob who would.
Based on comments I’ve seen in 2008, half the Mormons on Hot Air don’t even want Romney on the ticket.
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Dunno if you were being facetious, but that’s a brilliant idea.
RushBaby on August 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I guarantee there aren’t.
Heck, half the Mormons on Hot Air don’t even want Mitt on the ticket.
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 11:12 AM
1. Not ignoring history; was pointing out that you should not punish the modern Mormons for something their forefathers did. If that were the case, we would ALL be bad people.
2. Hey, it is their belief. I am a Christian, but far be it from me to judge one because of their beliefs. This is very judgmental of you. Let God judge.
3.
I believe this as well. I never claimed that the Mormon practices were. My claim was the Mormon people are great members of society who practice humility, family values and great discipline.
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM
(oops. first comment was delayed, so I tried to tone it down and try again.)
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Romney, Romney, Romney. I would choose to be surrounded by Mormons any and every day rather than a bunch of Un-Christian, Mormon hating bigots who profess to love thy neighbor and thump their Bible at every turn. Hipocrites.
Mormons walk the walk. Can you say that Olaf? Your hatred for Mormons is obvious to anyone who’s been on this site in the past 6 months. Give it a rest.
Geronimo on August 22, 2008 at 11:15 AM
highhopes: Believe me, no religion is out there praying for the death of a human being, least wise the Mormons.
Shick: blood atonement has nothing to do with being a “former Mormon”. Why don’t you learn from reliable sources instead of from your pastor?
Bambi on August 22, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I’m serious.
Brat on August 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM
How am I punishing modern Mormons by pointing out that their history influences their bliefs today?
We are all bad people. That is a fundamental Christian belief.
Am I being judgemental by saying that murder via blood atonement is wrong?
Who are you to judge that I’m being judgemental? Let God be the judge!
Well if you do believe that Jesus is the only way you are being judgemental. I’m using your logic.
I never said otherwise.
shick on August 22, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Say what? I did not read anything about murder linked to blood atonement. Of course that is wrong. The link you provided did not state that murder was linked to this practice.
If that is the case, then I am in agreement with you and it looks like we are in agreement on everything else as well.
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 11:26 AM
It has much to do with former Mormons considering that I have heard testimonies from former Mormons who were murdered in this decade.
Interesting reply considering I provided a link from Wikipedia and not from my pastor. You can also google it and be educated.
shick on August 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Wow, how did you do that?
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Exactly, carbon_footprint! Did they appear to you in a dream?
Bambi on August 22, 2008 at 11:36 AM
QFT. I’m a Christian, and I’d just as soon hang around with a bunch of Mormons. They certainly practice what they preach.
fossten on August 22, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I apologize for not being clearer.
It’s kind of hidden in the article.
Compassionate isn’t it?
I think the most heretical doctrine that the Mormon church has taught is right here.
shick on August 22, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Go Mitt!
davenp35 on August 22, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Good point but not hard to figure out despite my lack of clarity. I heard her(correction) testimony of leaving mormonism and that she feared for her and her families lives and then less than a month after she was murdered.
shick on August 22, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I went back and perused the wiki-article. The sense I get from reading it is that the blood atonement was the “spilling of one’s blood on the ground” to pay for sins. I did not take from that the sinners were murdered; merely cut and bled to show atonement for sins. BUT, I also got the sense, vis-a-vis the one executed twenty years later at the MMM site, was an execution-not unlike capital punishment. We Christians, for the most part, are proponents of capital punishment, yes? Compassion exists with justice for the victims.
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I thought you saw dead people for a moment. : P
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 11:43 AM
McCain’s life should be made uncomfortable if this decision boils down to picking his friend a life-long liberal Democrat or choosing somebody the GOP base can live with since the top spot went to a bitter liberal “conservative” who loathes social conservatives and evangelicals.
highhopes on August 22, 2008 at 11:59 AM
You talked to one person who feared for her life?
Please elaborate and I will protect her with my glock.
I think you have us mixed up with the muslims.
Please don’t spread lies about the Mormons. We take a great hit as it is, but lying that we kill former Mormons is one of the biggest.
Maybe you need to come to Salt Lake and see how many “formers” there are, and I don’t think one is afraid of us.
Including 2 of my sons.
Bambi on August 22, 2008 at 12:00 PM
wow.
That bears absolutely no resemblance to the church I go to every Sunday.
Considering that the descendants of those original 19th century Mormons number at most in the hundreds of thousands, and there are over 13 million Mormons now, I guarantee that more than ten million of them have never heard of blood atonement, and of those who have, nearly all of them consider it a relic of a barbaric period in LDS and American history.
If anyone imposes “blood atonement” on someone else for any reason, they are murderers, and if I was on the jury I’d vote to convict without hesitation. I’m for capital punishment, but under the laws of the United States.
Your view of Mormons as a death cult is utterly at odds with my faith. I’d never cut off heads in the name of my religion.
Ever.
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I visited Salt Lake City in June of 2007. Truly a wonderful city. I walked around in awe at the serene environment around the Temple Square. It was honestly a great feeling of security and love.
I am a Christian, by the way.
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Thanks carbon …. The pictures are lovely and it is just as I know it.
Bambi on August 22, 2008 at 12:10 PM
My pleasure. I just hate to see ignorance.
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 12:12 PM
There fixed it.
LevStrauss on August 22, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Thank you, Carbon.
I have no problem with people thinking we’re wrong – everyone is entitled to their beliefs. But once someone starts attaching devil horns and bloody fangs to a group…
What’s that line from Star Wars? Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. The 19th century Mormons were on the receiving end of recurring murderous hate. Even then, our greatest hope was simply to be accepted, or at least tolerated and left alone. We weren’t perfect at it – the times the Mormons fought back only heightened the tensions. The MMM was a brutal atrocity, a rare event in our history but one we’re still dealing with because it confirms some folks’ worst fears about us.
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 12:45 PM
This is 2008, not 1908. Nominating Palin would be great for the GOP in more ways than one.
Mr. Wednesday Night on August 22, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Palin/Bolton’s Mustache 2012!
sulla on August 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM
You are so wrong. There are millions of Mormons HERE that want Mitt. You know there are more in other places.
EJDolbow on August 22, 2008 at 1:01 PM
You’re welcome and very well said.
carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 1:04 PM
I’m big on Romney too. He has the temperment, the fire, the intelligence, the experience, and enough of attack dog in him to be a very effective VP campaigner. It doesn’t matter he might be unable to be elected prez on his own. He effectively came in 2nd in the GOP primary race, he’s tested in that arena. Bush #41 came in 2nd in 1980 and Reagan picked him. It’s a good move for McCain.
Paul-Cincy on August 22, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »