New Romney Florida ad: You don’t really want to nominate a disgraced Freddie Mac shill, do you?

posted at 5:00 pm on January 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

I understand why he’d want to hit Newt hard on Freddie in Florida, which has taken a beating from the housing downturn. What I don’t understand is what he’ll say when Newt reminds the world tonight that Mitt put more than $250,000 in mutual funds that invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Romney will come prepared with some sort of spin, but I think details are almost meaningless to most voters with tu quoques like this, especially with a candidate like Mitt who’s already perceived as two-faced. (Why is a guy who’s famously worth nine figures calling on anyone to give back some of their earnings, anyway? Terrible optics.) The takeaway will be Newt telling Mitt that his hands are dirty too and therefore he’s in no position to judge, and that’ll be that.

Question: If, like me, you’re clinging to the vaporous hope of a late entrant and/or brokered convention, how should you be rooting in Florida? For Newt, right? If Romney holds off Gingrich there, he’s back on track for the nomination, even if the slog will be longer than he first expected. If Gingrich upsets Romney, establishment Republicans will wet themselves in terror at the thought of an allegedly unelectable candidate becoming the nominee and will scramble to head Newt off. Maybe that means pushing someone new into the race or maybe it means propping the two of them up in various ways so that delegates split three ways between them and Ron Paul and no one has a majority at the convention. The Mitch Daniels fans are pleading with him again to reconsider, which makes sense insofar as Newt’s rise seems to have neutralized character attacks in the race. (In Daniels’s case, any attacks would be aimed at his wife, not at him, which makes them even more unlikely.) The problem with Daniels as a late entrant, though, is that he too would be seen as an “establishment” candidate, perhaps even more so than Romney. He’s a Bush guy, after all, and would have plenty of wealthy donors behind him, which Gingrich would frame as an attempt by “insiders” to rig the election twice at the expense of grassroots conservatives after having failed to do it once with Romney. If establishment Republicans really want to stop Newtmentum, they’d need a candidate with grassroots cred to blunt Newt’s pushback. Jindal seems like the most obvious option to me: He’s a free agent now that Perry’s out of the race and he’s universally respected among grassroots conservatives. But could he win a three-way race with Romney and Gingrich (or, rather, a four-way race with Paul) at this point? Hard to imagine. I think it’s brokered convention or bust.


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 3 4 5

robm on January 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I’ve never said anything about anything disqualifying someone for office. I was speaking purely from a doctrinal standpoint.

As for the rest, it’s not my interpretation, it’s historical Mormon interpretation. I have no idea what’s being taught in the churches now, but after discussing Mormon theology with Mormons for the past twenty years or so I find that many are quite ignorant of what their founders, past presidents and doctrinal books have tought in the past. i.e.:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 10th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:

And what this view of Jesus as a created being and not “very God of very God” precludes one from is claiming that they worship the Christian God. Muslims also believe in Jesus, they claim to honor Him and worship the same God that He did. But they are wrong.

Christians hammered these doctrines out centuries ago when they wrote the various creeds. In fact it was beliefs like some that the Mormon Church currently and historically teach that led to the necessity to develop those creeds. They are intentionally unambiguous and extraordinarally throuough for just that reason.

But, since Joseph Smith claims that in his very first vision when he asked God which “sect” he should join:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage [Jesus] who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

I wonder why the heck any Mormon would want to claim that he worships the same God as Christians. I also wonder how so many here can be so sensitive to any kind of criticism of their beliefs when the very beginning of their religion was God saying that every single Christian denomination’s creeds were “an abomination” and athat their “professors were all corrupt.” Heck, the very name “Latter Day Saints” implies that for quite a while there were no “Saints” (that is “true Christians”) until Mormonism came around.

But mostly it makes me wonder why, if all of modern Christianity’s creeds are “abominations,” then why has the Mormon church spend the last few decades attempting to align their doctrines with those of modern Christianity? If my doctines are corrupt and yours agree with mine, then aren’t yours corrupt too?

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Flora Duh on January 23, 2012 at 6:29 PM

What “conspiracy theory” have I developed?

Fact: Gingrich the vulture capitalist cooked up a scheme to charge small biz folks $5000 to receive a bogus “Entrepreneur of the Year” award.
Fact: Gingrich frugged people
Fact: Gingrich’s “Think Tank” was a deadbeat tenant who owed back rent and was ordered by a judge to pay it along with an eviction notice.
Fact: Gingrich was a co-sponsor in 1987 of the Fairness Doctrine which his hero Reagan vetoed.

This doesn’t even begin to get into his attacks on Bill Clinton… which also goes in the “fact” category…

Buy Danish on January 23, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Some one should tell Ann Coulter (on ORielly) that her whining about Gingrich sounds like a Steven Tyler National Anthem.

WAAAAAAAA

Rovin on January 23, 2012 at 8:34 PM

BTW – term “natural born” was taken by the Founder and main writer of the Constitution, James Madison, from the tome, “The Law of Nations.”

Ever read it? No? I didn’t think so. Defines “natural born” as someone born on native soil to citizens of a particular country.

[Horace on January 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM]

Haven’t read “The Law of Nations.” I don’t know that what you describe as being the definition of natural born is contrary to what Blackstone defines. Here’s his commentary. According to Blackstone, in that commentary, (1765 and as such could be considered a refinement of Vattel’s 1758 treatise, at least, in the British view, of which we were a colony and, furthermore, would consider paramount wrt interpretation of common law)), sui soli or based solely on where you were born, was the long held view and both the issues of government emissaries, ie, children of ambassadors, and citizenship accrued from parental citizenship owing to such things as the ‘globalization of trade’ wherein children of subjects (NB, citizens) abroad were also subjects (NB, citizens) were parlimentarily legislated to extend/confer protections/allegiance the same as being born within the jurisdiction of the prince/king/country. One thing that ought to be noted is that at the time, jus soli was perpetual and could not be given up or renounced without the concurrence of the prince/king/country because it was natural and inherent.

Interestingly there was a case in Massachusetts in 1806 to do with voting wherein the question of citizenship, and allegiances were issues and background considerations the subject were discussed and those discussions mirrored Blackstone almost to a T.

So, jus soli is the primary factor and is a separate issue from citizenship of the parents. As regards jus sanquinis, it is always an extension of the category of the natural born condition of citizenship and not a withdrawal or constriction of the category, such as you suggest with looking to the citizenship of parents when the child is born right here in this country.

Bottom line, if you are born here you are a natural born citizen and nothing else matters. That, at least, is what the prevailing meaning of natural born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Dusty on January 23, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Interesting question to ponder: who will the NRA endorse? Obama or Newt Gingrich? Considering their records on 2th Amendment issues, I don’t think an Obama endorsement is out of possibility:
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/gun-owners-of-america-newt-aint-great-on-2nd-amendment-rights-broke-his-promise-to-america/

joana on January 23, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Funny, I just verified that your last line by line was missing 60% of the text and items taken out of context. So much for your honor system of doing what you say you do. Go the hell away, it is people like you that make the (R) party one that the people of the United States of America rejected in 2006 and 2008. People like you getting your way will lead right back to the (R) party being out in the wilderness again, and who knows, maybe the (D) party will have learned something from Obama and go slowly as to not spook the people into the (R) party’s hands so soon as it did this last time.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 8:04 PM

No, don’t stop him. I think I’m getting the hang of this. It’s fun.

I gave money

to a battle

and lured geriatrics out of their nursing home

to toss away

the country

As always, I am trying to make

Obama

President

V7_Sport on January 23, 2012 at 8:22 PM

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 8:43 PM

One should identify “the GOP establishment” and what’s to be gained by beating them (whoever they are) about the head before one commences with the act.

alchemist19 on January 23, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I would guess that the establishment would be the people who pushed Romney as inevitable. Then again it could be the people who gave us such a weak field. Or it could be something else. This isnt something monolithic, hes just the focus point for alot of people with their own gripe, be it against the GOP, Romney, media or hell, some may even like him.

Whats to be gained depends on the person but thats not really the point. Thing is both the GOP and Romney need to think about the why because its what will be lost by not thinking about it.

Sultanofsham on January 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM

What did that innocent little strawman every do to you that you felt like you had to knock him over like that? Poor little fella…

alchemist19 on January 23, 2012 at 8:03 PM

It was a joke ya goober.

Ahhhhh. Rombot desperation…it’s like ambrosia.

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 8:45 PM

It was a joke ya goober.

Ahhhhh. Rombot desperation…it’s like ambrosia.

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 8:45 PM

I’m not a Romney supporter and you’ll have to forgive me for not noticing what you said was a joke. It wasn’t funny so I assumed you were being serious.

alchemist19 on January 23, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Conservatives will not take lightly someone entering the fray at the last-minute without having to “earn” the nominations via old fashion campaigning.

The only exception I think that would work is for someone outside of politics–that the American people already know–who is almost “drafted” into throwing his/her name into the ring..ex. General David H. Petraeus.

Deep Timber on January 23, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I’m not a Romney supporter and you’ll have to forgive me for not noticing what you said was a joke. It wasn’t funny so I assumed you were being serious.

alchemist19 on January 23, 2012 at 8:53 PM

ouch! sorry for assuming your support for Romney. I shall feed elsewhere.

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 9:05 PM

My taxes paid for most of this investigation, so I think I have the right to excerpt as much of it as I want.

C. Statement of Alleged Violation
Based on the information described above, the Special Counsel proposed a Statement of Alleged Violations (“SAV”) to the Subcommittee on December 12, 1996. The SAV contained three counts: (1) Mr. Gingrich’s activities on behalf of ALOF in regard to AOW/ACTV, and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and approval, constituted a violation of ALOF’s status under section 501(c)(3); (2) Mr. Gingrich’s activities on behalf of Kennesaw State College Foundation, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Reinhardt College in regard to the Renewing American Civilization course, and the activities of others in that regard with his knowledge and approval, constituted a violation of those organizations’ status under section 501(c)(3); and (3) Mr. Gingrich had provided information to the Committee, directly or through counsel, that was material to matters under consideration by the Committee, which Mr. Gingrich knew or should have known was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable.

1. Deliberations on the Tax Counts
There was a difference of opinion regarding whether to issue the SAV as drafted on the tax counts. Concern was expressed about deciding this tax issue in the context of an ethics proceeding. This led the discussion to the question of the appropriate focus for the Subcommittee. A consensus began to build around the view that the proper focus was on the conduct of the Member, rather than a resolution of issues of tax law. From the beginning of the Preliminary Inquiry, there was a desire on the part of each of the Members to find a way to reach a unanimous conclusion in this matter. The Members felt it was important to confirm the bipartisan nature of the ethics process. The discussion turned to what steps Mr. Gingrich had taken in regard to these two projects to ensure they were done in accord with the provisions of 501(c)(3). In particular, the Subcommittee was concerned with the fact that: (1) Mr. Gingrich had been “very well aware” of the American Campaign Academy case prior to embarking on these projects; (2) he had been involved with 501(c)(3) organizations to a sufficient degree to know that politics and tax-deductible contributions are, as his tax counsel said, an “explosive mix;” (3) he was clearly involved in a project that had significant partisan, political goals, and he had taken an aggressive approach to the tax laws in regard to both AOW/ACTV; and (4) Renewing American Civilization projects. Even Mr. Gingrich’s own tax lawyer told the Subcommittee that if Mr. Gingrich had come to him before embarking on these projects, he would have advised him to not use a 501(c)(3) organization for the dissemination of AOW/ACTV or Renewing American Civilization. Had Mr. Gingrich sought and followed this advice, he would not have used the 501(c)(3) organizations, would not have had his projects subsidized by taxpayer funds, and would not have created this controversy that has caused significant disruption to the House. The Subcommittee concluded that there were significant and substantial warning signals to Mr. Gingrich that he should have heeded prior to embarking on these projects. Despite these warnings, Mr. Gingrich did not seek any legal advice to ensure his conduct conformed with the provisions of 501(c)(3). In looking at this conduct in light of all the facts and circumstances, the Subcommittee was faced with a disturbing choice. Either Mr. Gingrich did not seek legal advice because he was aware that it would not have permitted him to use a 501(c)(3) organization for his projects, or he was reckless in not taking care that, as a Member of Congress, he made sure that his conduct conformed with the law in an area where he had ample warning that his intended course of action was fraught with legal peril. The Subcommittee decided that regardless of the resolution of the 501(c)(3) tax question, Mr. Gingrich’s conduct in this regard was improper, did not reflect creditably on the House, and was deserving of sanction.
2. Deliberations Concerning the Letters
The Subcommittee’s deliberation concerning the letters provided to the Committee centered on the question of whether Mr. Gingrich intentionally submitted inaccurate information. There was a belief that the record developed before the Subcommittee was not conclusive on this point. The Special Counsel suggested that a good argument could be made, based on the record, that Mr. Gingrich did act intentionally, however it would be difficult to establish that with a high degree of certainty. The culmination of the evidence on this topic again left the Subcommittee with a disturbing choice. Either Mr. Gingrich intentionally made misrepresentations to the Committee, or he was again reckless in the way he provided information to the Committee concerning a very important matter. The standard applicable to the Subcommittee’s deliberations was whether there is reason to believe that Mr. Gingrich had acted as charged in this count of the SAV. All felt that this standard had been met in regard to the allegation that Mr. Gingrich “knew” that the information he provided to the Committee was inaccurate. However, there was considerable discussion to the effect that if Mr. Gingrich wanted to admit to submitting information to the Committee that he “should have known” was inaccurate, the Subcommittee would consider deleting the allegation that he knew the information was inaccurate. The Members were of the opinion that if there were to be a final adjudication of the matter, taking into account the higher standard of proof that is involved at that level, “should have known” was an appropriate framing of the charge in light of all the facts and circumstances.

3. Discussions with Mr. Gingrich’s Counsel and Recommended Sanction
On December 13, 1996, the Subcommittee issued an SAV charging Mr. Gingrich with three counts of violations of House Rules. Two counts concerned the failure to seek legal advice in regard to the 501(c)(3) projects, and one count concerned providing the Committee with information which he knew or should have known was inaccurate. At the time the Subcommittee voted this SAV, the Members discussed the matter among themselves and reached a consensus that it would be in the best interests of the House for the matter to be resolved without going through a disciplinary hearing. It was estimated that such a hearing could take up to three months to complete and would not begin for several months. Because of this, it was anticipated that the House would have to deal with this matter for another six months. Even though the Subcommittee Members felt that it would be advantageous to the House to avoid a disciplinary hearing, they all were committed to the proposition that any resolution of the matter had to reflect adequately the seriousness of the offenses. To this end, the Subcommittee Members discussed and agreed upon a recommended sanction that was fair in light of the conduct reflected in this matter, but explicitly recognized that the full Committee would make the ultimate decision as to the recommendation to the fullHouse as to the appropriate sanction. In determining what the appropriate sanction should be in this matter, the Subcommittee and Special Counsel considered the seriousness of the conduct, the level of care exercised by Mr. Gingrich, the disruption caused to the House by the conduct, the cost to the House in having to pay for an extensive investigation, and the repetitive nature of the conduct. As is noted above, the Subcommittee was faced with troubling choices in each of the areas covered by the Statement of Alleged Violation. Either Mr. Gingrich’s conduct in regard to the 501(c)(3) organizations and the letters he submitted to the Committee was intentional or it was reckless. Neither choice reflects creditably on the House. While the Subcommittee was not able to reach a comfortable conclusion on these issues, the fact that the choice was presented is a factor in determining the appropriate sanction. In addition, the violation does not represent only a single instance of reckless conduct. Rather, over a number of years and in a number of situations, Mr. Gingrich showed a disregard and lack of respect for the standards of conduct that applied to his activities. Under the Rules of the Committee, a reprimand is the appropriate sanction for a serious violation of House Rules and a censure is appropriate for a more serious violation of House Rules. Rule 20(g), Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It was the opinion of the Subcommittee that this matter fell somewhere in between. Accordingly, the Subcommittee and the Special Counsel recommend that the appropriate sanction should be a reprimand and a payment reimbursing the House for some of the costs of the investigation in the amount of $300,000. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that this is the appropriate sanction in this matter. Beginning on December 15, 1996, Mr. Gingrich’s counsel and the Special Counsel began discussions directed toward resolving the matter without a disciplinary hearing. The discussions lasted through December 20, 1996. At that time an understanding was reached by both Mr. Gingrich and the Subcommittee concerning this matter. That understanding was put on the record on December 21, 1996 by Mr. Cole follows:

Mr. Cole: The subcommittee has had an opportunity to review the facts in this case, and has had extensive discussion about the appropriate resolution of this matter.
Mr. Cardin: If I might just add here to your next understanding, the Members of the subcommittee, prior to the adoption of the Statement of Alleged Violation, were concerned that the nonpartisan deliberations of the subcommittee continue beyond the findings of the subcommittee. Considering the record of the full Ethics Committee in the 104th Congress and the partisan environment in the full House, the Members of the subcommittee felt that it was important to exercise bipartisan leadership beyond the workings of the subcommittee. * * *
Mr. Cole: It was the opinion of the Members of the subcommittee and the Special Counsel, that based on the facts of this case as they are currently known, the appropriate sanction for the conduct described in the original Statement of Alleged Violations is a reprimand and the payment of $300,000 toward the cost of the preliminary inquiry.
In light of this opinion, the subcommittee Members and the Special Counsel intend to recommend to the full committee that this be the sanction recommended by the full committee to the House. The Members also intend to support this as the sanction in the committee and on the Floor of the House.
However, if new facts are developed or brought to the attention of the Members of the subcommittee, they are free to change their opinions.
The Subcommittee, through its counsel, has communicated this to Mr. Gingrich, through his counsel. Mr. Gingrich has agreed that if the subcommittee will amend the Statement of Alleged Violations to be one count, instead of three counts, however, still including all of the conduct described in the original Statement of Alleged Violations, and will allow the addition of some language which reflects aspects of the record in this matter concerning the involvement of Mr. Gingrich’s counsel in the preparation of the letters described in the original Count 3 of the Statement of Alleged Violations,88 he will admit to the entire Statement of Alleged Violation and agree to the view of the subcommittee Members and the Special Counsel as to the appropriate sanction
In light of Mr. Gingrich’s admission to the Statement of Alleged Violation, the subcommittee is of the view that the rules of the committee will not require that an adjudicatory hearing take place; however, a sanction hearing will need to be held under the rules.
The subcommittee and Mr. Gingrich desire to have the sanction hearing concluded as expeditiously as possible, but it is understood that this will not take place at the expense of orderly procedure and a full and fair opportunity for the full committee to be informed of any information necessary for each Member of the full committee to be able to make a decision at the sanction hearing.
After the subcommittee has voted a new Statement of Alleged Violation, Mr. Gingrich will file his answer admitting to it. The subcommittee will seek the permission of the full committee to release the Statement of Alleged Violation, Mr. Gingrich’s answer, and a brief press release which has been approved by Mr. Gingrich’s counsel. At the same time, Mr. Gingrich will release a brief press release that has been approved by the subcommittee’s Special Counsel.
Both the subcommittee and Mr. Gingrich agree that no public comment should be made about this matter while it is still pending. This includes having surrogates sent out to comment on the matter and attempt to mischaracterize it.
Accordingly, beyond the press statements described above, neither Mr. Gingrich nor any Member of the subcommittee may make any further public comment. Mr. Gingrich understands that if he violates this provision, the subcommittee will have the option of reinstating the original Statement of Alleged Violations and allowing Mr. Gingrich an opportunity to withdraw his answer.
And I should note that it is the intention of the subcommittee that “public comments” refers to press statements; that, obviously, we are free and Mr. Gingrich is free to have private conversations with Members of Congress about these matters.

I dunno the source material really does not make it seem like there is any ethical violation at all. In fact, it looks like the entirety of his ethics charge was, he applied tax law appropriately as evidenced by the IRS finding there to be no merit to the idea that any of the parties were wrong in their use of the law but in the course of defending himself, his lawyer submitted in his name a document that was in error. Anyone at all ever see a legitimate carriage of justice where the person is railroaded through a 2 year long investigation for charges that had no merit and is later fined because their lawyer submitted something incorrect and there was no intention to deceive?

You know, lots of people go through these investigations in the country. Duke La Cross team rape charges come to mind. What I rarely ever see happen is that people are despicable enough to attack them after they have been found not guilty.

Remember that these charges were filed because Newt Gingrich was making an educational course about America to get the We The People back involved in politics. They were brought as payback for having ousted another Speaker of the House that really was ethically challenged in 1988. The charges were brought by the Democrats, and at the time of the charges, the Republicans were angry with Newt because he was working hard at the time to move power out of Washington and back into the hands of We the People at just the point in time that they finally had taken the Majority of the House of Representatives. They must have thought Contract with America was just a ploy to win elections and not meant to really be passed. Is there anything in the record since this ethics charge that shows that the Republican party has spent one minute trying to reduce the size of government or give any power back to the People?

Newt was the last Republican in office to have ever reduced the footprint of government on citizens backs. I wonder why establishment Republicans night want to stop you from voting for him. I say it is because they know that with him as president they will lose power!

NEWT 2012!

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 9:15 PM

I was going to say, “The way I remember it….” but first rattle out of the box, Amjean said it better:

“Newt was “Palinized” before she was.”

And Republicans allowed/helped throw him under/off the bus. It happens far too often and I‘m tired of it. Besides Gingrich and Palin, Tom Delay comes to mind (did he actually turn out to have done anything wrong?) and Trent Lott, I know all he did was say something nice about an old man at a birthday party..

This spot and Chris Christie’s comments today just tick me off.

bertielou on January 23, 2012 at 9:19 PM

He can only appeal to people who think that television preachers are sincere and/or that porn actresses are having a good time.

aloysiusmiller on January 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Neutron Newt is the Elmer Gantry of the 2012 GOP primary.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Stayright on January 23, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Did you ever confirm if God hangs his Jesus skin suit in the closet or folds it and puts in in his drawer?

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I wonder why the heck any Mormon would want to claim that he worships the same God as Christians.

Same God I guess because we are both talking about the one Jesus Christ. But, admittedly, a somewhat different understanding of who He is.

I also wonder how so many here can be so sensitive to any kind of criticism of their beliefs when the very beginning of their religion was God saying that every single Christian denomination’s creeds were “an abomination” and that their “professors were all corrupt.”

Yes, we believe the Nicene Creed is a confusing mix of various philosophies present several hundred years after the death of Christ, his apostles, and his church.

Heck, the very name “Latter Day Saints” implies that for quite a while there were no “Saints” (that is “true Christians”) until Mormonism came around.

“Latter Day” Saints, as compared to the “Former Day” Saints (members of the church) at the time of Christ. Certainly not to say one must be a Mormon to be a Saint. I’ve seen many contradictions to that argument both from Mormons and non. :)

But mostly it makes me wonder why, if all of modern Christianity’s creeds are “abominations,” then why has the Mormon church spend the last few decades attempting to align their doctrines with those of modern Christianity? If my doctines are corrupt and yours agree with mine, then aren’t yours corrupt too?

Not trying to “align” LDS doctrine with those of modern Christianity. Just saying, we think we love and follow the Savior, and find it therefore natural to call ourselves Christians.

There are, I believe, a great many doctrines and values that we do share. I think, also, those that most affect our day-to-day lives and how we should comport ourselves. We are much more similar than we are different.

29Victor on January 23, 2012 at 8:32 PM

robm on January 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I can take other criticism of Romney, heaven knows I’ve offered it myself. But the banal discussion about religious beliefs and truths, mostly by people who know far less than they think they do, is truly getting tiresome.

robm on January 23, 2012 at 7:05 PM

The stayright type bigots always spam the Romney threads. He has no honor or shame and will continue until the wee hours of the morning.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Yes, we believe the Nicene Creed is a confusing mix of various philosophies present several hundred years after the death of Christ, his apostles, and his church.

robm on January 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I understood that the doctrine was decided through a series of give and take meetings of the different secs in order to establish text. There was no divine guidance only jealousy and deal making.

If a so-called Christian of the Nicene Creed ever accused me of not believing in the real Jesus, I’d split my sides laughing at his accusation! I cannot even imagine the amount of factual doctrine and true stories of his teachings that ended up on the scrap heap after that council. Good gravy! Can anyone really know if they are following true doctrine when it was mashed together like a pack of kids trading baseball cards?

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 9:34 PM

The stayright type bigots always spam the Romney threads. He has no honor or shame and will continue until the wee hours of the morning.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I believe the most despicable comments regarding religion (specifically Christians) have come from your keyboard…every time Mitt loses, you lose it also. Any one so invested in a public figure probably should seek professional help, Mitt is not your lover, he is a public figure, with a professional marketing firm to create an image for people to see. I am sure he is a great guy, but it worries me about peoples obsession…it never ends right.
Reagan, Giffords, Monica Seles, the list is endless of “fans” that are obsessed…calm down honey, for your own mental health.

right2bright on January 23, 2012 at 9:43 PM

The stayright type bigots always spam the Romney threads. He has no honor or shame and will continue until the wee hours of the morning.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I do not like your stance, but I will say I feel badly that you are being attacked based on your religion.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM

The Creed(s) is a summary of beliefs, and it is accepted by the Christian Church as being that, a summary. There is no accusations, just a definition, a defining statement in a few words so one can discern between Christians and non-Christians….the irony is that any faith not adopting it, has never fully stated what part they do not accept…like many, gnash their teeth, but say nothing.
Any faith that does not buy into the basic summary is not, by definition, a Christian Church.
Yes there are things left out, like specifically Christians are mono-theists, that is not clearly stated.
Of course non-Christian would take issue with the different Creeds, it excludes them from being Christian.
But strange that most of them, historically attacked the Christian Church and demanded to be separate from them…only when it proved to be a good marketing ploy did they change their tune.
Hey, isn’t that what Mitt does? Change his stance depending on if he is trying to woo liberals or conservatives?

right2bright on January 23, 2012 at 9:50 PM

I do not like your stance, but I will say I feel badly that you are being attacked based on your religion.

astonerii on January 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Yeah, she is a real gem…I don’t think you should feel so badly, she has attacked every Christian that has run for office.

Yeah, dummies! To be a “REAL CHRISTIAN” one has to believe that when God wants to switch from being Jesus to the Holy Ghost, he CAN’T USE WIRE HANGERS WHEN HE HANGS HIS JESUS SKIN SUIT IN THE CLOSET.

csdeven on January 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM

right2bright on January 23, 2012 at 9:56 PM

First, Mormons are not Christian, they are Mormons. Why? The Book of Mormon-period. That is a theological fact no matter what Mormons want to sell you.

Second, Romney is who obama wants to run against. If you want to re-elect him, vote for Romney.

M_J_S on January 23, 2012 at 11:46 PM

This

“Newt was “Palinized” before she was.”

And Republicans allowed/helped throw him under/off the bus. It happens far too often and I‘m tired of it. Besides Gingrich and Palin, Tom Delay comes to mind (did he actually turn out to have done anything wrong?) and Trent Lott, I know all he did was say something nice about an old man at a birthday party..

This spot and Chris Christie’s comments today just tick me off.

bertielou on January 23, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Connie on January 24, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Hey! anonymous blogger who posted this — have you heard of a blind trust?? It seems you havent considering your thought that Romney shouldnt be criticizing Newt for loggying for Fannie and Freddie.

kmalkows on January 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Coulter knows what’s up.

netster007x on January 24, 2012 at 2:58 AM

I live in the Tampa area and every Romney PAC ad makes me want to do the opposite of what the ad says. Ad says Newt bad, I hear Vote for Newt.

My opinion of Mitt is he is more than a few zipper teeth short of being presidential.

meci on January 24, 2012 at 8:45 AM

The Gingrich Campaign began immediately after the debate to expose Romney’s lack of conservative credentials:

“You know, on one side, you had a true conservative. On the other side, you had someone masquerading as somebody that they were not,” Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond told reporters in the post-debate spin room. “So the people of Florida are very familiar with this story.” The story in 2010 ended, of course, with Crist bolting from the Republican party when it became apparent Rubio would trounce him. Crist lost to Rubio in the general election as an independent.

“I think here in Florida, all we have to do is remind people that Mitt Romney is Charlie Crist,”

THIS is language Florida voters understand.

The electorate of Florida is older, but wiser – but more than that – they are scared and angry.

They are looking for a champion and the establishment Republican Party has failed them by:

-failing to regulate Fanny/Freddy

-failing to corral and stop this administration’s brazen corruption, pillaging and spending, destructive policies and unconstitutional radicalism, the heavy handed attacks on their values, on churches, on the law and Constitution.

Barack Obama has waged war on America and they want it stopped. The establishment Republicans are not doing squat about it.

They don’t want a Christ, a McCain, or even a GW or Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels (so don’t try it).
They don’t want anyone the RNC will haul out of their corrupt camp.

They want a champion, a fighter and someone who knows what is going on and will tell the truth about it.

St. Nikao on January 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM

PS – Florida conservative voters, probably more than any state in the US, know exactly who to blame for the Freddy/Fanny/Bank Mortgage scam.

And they know darned good and well it’s not Newt.

They weren’t born yesterday. These are retired CEOs, bankers, stock brokers, elected officials, government workers, etc.

They have read, researched, analyzed.

They know exactly who, what and why.

It’s ludicrous to try to fool them.

St. Nikao on January 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Oh, heck Gingrich was just the house historian for Freddie Mac. He was not doing any lobbying ……….. er, influence peddling.

SC.Charlie on January 24, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5