My man Mitt (I would have made this decision earlier if the bots had let me think)
By BlackRepub Posted in 2008 | Archived | GOP | Mitt | Primary | Romney — Comments (68) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I am writing this because I am willing to take one for the time that is not divisive. I have gone from supporting a man who does not want to be President, to supporting a man who will be Dukakised in the election. I have been reluctant because of the early botting that proceeded HWMNBN, and IMO, resembled a close second. I admit that I did hold some early prejudice against him, I feel like any man who says he isn't prejudiced is lying. But I have looked around and decided to put a few people back on the shelf. Yes, this is my official endorsement of Mitt Romney for the next President of the United States.
I started off my days with Fred, mostly because of the early endorsement of haystack and later Gamecock, two contributors I read regularly. I wanted to like Fred, I really did-but he failed to impress me, and his off the cuff remarks this morning to me just amplify that Fred is here because we asked him to be, but his heart really isn't in winning the Presidency. A grave disappointment to me, so I put Fred back up and kept shopping in the aisle.
Then I walked into the Huckabee aisle, and boy did it seem nice and friendly. He had everything I wanted, Southern, Baptist preacher, someone who was able to win 48 percent of the African-American vote as governor. He promised to sign the no tax pledge, and that seemed good enough to me. I was all set to be a part of Team Huckabee, and I had all my bets hedged on him winning Iowa and carrying that steam into the Southern states and taking the Southern strategy to the Presidency. Then I looked at his record, and I looked at his speech during the African-American debate, and I was horrified at what I found. I realized immediately when I read his speech how he won 48 percent of the Black vote-he sounded eerily like a Democrat - he talked about "institutional racism," he talked about the inequity of drug laws, and he talked in code about support for affirmative action. Digging even deeper I saw that while he regretted his Willie Horton moment, there is no way that Hillary Clinton would not pound him over the head with it in order to win the election. On top of all of that Huckabee's support for the Dream Act is not going to allow him to slam Clinton for supporting drivers licenses for illegal aliens, a huge winning issue for the GOP this election.
Then I came to Romney, an aisle I had always been leery of because of the supporters he's had on the site. I've found their botting for him, as I said, on the level of HWMNBN before HWMNBN was popular. But BananaRepublican's endorsement had gotten me open to the idea, and the more I read of him in other places the more I liked him. And unlike Giuliani, Romney will be indebted to the SoCons like no one else if he wins the Presidency. All things aside, Romney is not Bush, and as much as I love GW, the country needs someone who is not Bush to win the election, and I think Romney is a different kind of politician. I'm willing to shed my Mormon prejudice because I believe he will govern as a Christian, and I think he has been an impeccable family man, and I believe he would take care of this country and go after the Clintons. So here it is, my final endorsement until after the primaries-I am a proud supporter of my man Mitt Romney for POTUS and I think he will take down Rudy in the primaries-It feels good to finally be with a winner.
... at the same time.
Your content is great. Your formatting is ... not so great.
I'll do it for you one more time. But please work on it.
What should I do to fix the formatting?-Whenever I try to paragraph things, it does not come out correctly.
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."-Ann Coulter
Pitbull of the VRWC
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I am glad that you have come to support Romney. I respect that decision. I myself would only support him if Huckabee and McCain fall out of the race. I believe most Republicans who have a problem with Huckabee have a problem with him because, as he says, he does not "spell God GOP." Imagine a Presient who put principles before party. (I suspect that is what scares many republicans). The elite Republicans want someone that they can control-- someone that will be driven to follow the latest agenda. I myself want a Republican, like Huckabee or Mccain, that will say this is where I stand (like it or not). I seriously doubt that Thompson or Romney have such courage-- yet, it might be what gets one of them elected. I would take a man that talks like a Democrat sometimes, than a man who takes his stands based upon "a strategy to win the White House." Yep, many put party above principle:)
God bless you all.
Jamie
Don't demonize Republicans who don't like your candidates.
There are lots of reasons to choose a candidate.
My reasons for not choosing Huckabee and McCain are that their instincts and record on Immigration are terrible regardless of what they are saying now.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'd like a moment of silence for BlackRepub's epiphany and for any and all others that need the silence from bots so they can evaluate this post in piece ;-)
[Content is 97.99% bot free]
"...evaluate this post in peace"
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
Romney's a good person. He's got baggage as the former governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the nation, and legislative baggage from having to deal with a state legislature that is the most supermajority (D) legislature in the country.
I've been a dissident voice (although not a RomneyBot) when people have criticized him because I know from firsthand experience that sometimes the best experience in life is what some people might call the worst -- it means that you *understand* your adversary. In a way that few people truly can.
On the merits Mitt Romney would have been the front-runner in this race if he hadn't first been the governor of Massachusetts. Most of sniping centers around his tenure as governor, in which I think he was *effective* as a Republican governor in this otherwise hapless, absolutely Democrat-locked-up state. I've always believed that once he moved onto the national stage, he would be set free from the constraints of being the Massachusetts Governor, and virtually everything he's said and done from the moment he left office has convinced me he's sincere about that. It's always been telling that the most vehement oppostion to Romney's candidacy nationally has truthfully emanated from the *Democrats* in Massachusetts -- who know that he's the real deal and have tried to knock him down because of that.
I don't want to say Mitt Romney will make a "great" President -- those are large shoes for anyone to fill. But I know that he's a very smart, driven, experienced, committed Republican and a family man who anyone can admire. He's also a fresh face, and a handsome one -- and when Mitt Romney stands on the world stage with anyone as President we can be sure that he'll have the measure of anyone standing alongside him. He has a youthful vigor and a lot of character. And speaking personally I don't mind people who have changed their minds on abortion in the past 10 years. I have.
Thanks for your endorsement. He's the best candidate in the field.
I was surprised by Weyrich's endorsement but I can tell you that as a Romney supporter, I took it as a personal vote of confidence and responsibility, also. By that I mean to say that when I read about it, I felt that I was on the right path in everything I've done in the past five years personally, including supporting Mitt. It's a small thing, I'm only one person, but his endorsement strengthened my commitment. I don't take it for granted, and it's made me want to work harder for the Conservative movement.
You've given it a lot of thought. Even if you had chosen another candidate, you have to respect someone who thinks carefully about whom they support.
I made the move to Romney over a year ago. I have never regretted it. Sure, he's made a couple of gaffes during that time, but his fundamentals have always been rock solid.
Welcome aboard.
This is exciting. I share your belief in Mitt. He is an outside the beltway guy compared to McCain and Thompson, so that will be interesting. Guiliani is a good guy. I can attest to his abilities as I was a New York City resident during his reign. But when I compared Guiliani versus Mitt, I was impressed by Mitt's depth of experience. Whatever he has done he has done well. I could support Rudy, but I can be excited about Mitt. Welcome to the fold.
It seems your switch is in line with many in the Republican Race. As time goes on, slowly but surely, this is becoming a two man Race, one pro-life, and one Pro-abortion.
Romney is the only one's whose platform is both Socially Conservative and Fiscally Conservatives.
I think of the top tier he is the least likely to win the general. It is almost like he is the John Kerry of this field. Has a resume and seems presidential, but no one really believes he is authentic. It is hard to genuinely like a robot.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
He's twice as articulate and has a lot more experience than Kerry.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
- twice as articulate
Uh-oh. This is starting to remind me of Bill Clinton. With Clinton, there were two kinds of people in the world: those who thought he was the most wonderful, bright, charming man ever; and those who had a visceral "used car salesman" reaction.
I'm seeing the same thing with Romney. "He's bright, he's articulate, what's not to like?" And then there's, "too slick by half, if you ask me. He's plastic. His hair is plastic. Everything about him is plastic. Even his wife and kids are plastic."
I guess the good news for Romney is that Clinton won.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Remember that Bill Clinton was slick and all that, but he won the left vote while moving decidedly to the center. Romney is doing the exact opposite. That is, he is playing to win the base to secure the nomination while Clinton played to the general election while trying to still capture the nomination. So Romney is moving in the exact wrong direction because he can't win over the trust of the base while still playing for the general. Clinton was able to hold the base while always playing moderate. It is a crucial difference to keep in mind.
Clinton was able to contradict the ultra-left and hold their vote on NAFTA, welfare reform, etc. Romney is trying to take every purist position just to barely hang on in the primary. Where does he go from there? If he moves back to the center Republicans wary of his trustworthiness will feel betrayed and if he stays hard right the moderates and independents that swing elections will balk.
To me his position is untenable.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
I promise I will welcome both of you with warm, open arms into the Romney camp when you two decide to make the switch, just like more and more and more and more people are doing everyday. Come on in, the water's fine.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
...Romney has the strength of Clinton (persuasive speaker), without the weakness (liberalism). Sign me up!
While I take all of your points seriously, I think that you are misconstruing a few important facts about how Clinton won the primary in 1992.
First, Clinton won the primary at a time when Democrats were much hungrier for a win than Republicans are today.
The Democrats had lost 3 straight presidential elections for the first time since the 1920's. And they lost all three by an electoral landslide.
No "re-configured" Dukakis-type candidate was going to get them the office that was starting to look like it could remain in Republican hands forever.
They were as desperate for a winner as Republicans were in 1968, after getting wiped out by LBJ in 1964.
So Clinton didn't have to pander to liberals, blacks, gays, feminists, or any group, really. He just had to look and act like a Democrat who could win the general election.
Mitt has the misfortune of running for president at a very partisan time. Luckily for him, it is partisan on both sides of the great divide. Unfortunately, Mitt cannot afford to allow Giuliani or McCain or Thompson get to the right of him on any major issue.
But if Mitt is given a chance, he can rise up in the polls the same way that Bill Clinton did. Bill Clinton was polling in the 4% range at this point in 1991. In March of 1992, right after he seemed to have the nomination sewn up, it looked like he would fare as poorly as Dukakis. But, with a little help from Perot and some well-intentioned Reaganites, Clinton became president with only 43% of the popular vote.
Romney/Thompson 2008
We are going to smack the Democrats around over illegal immigration all election season. We are going to smack Hillary over support for the DREAM act, support for liscences for illegals, and we are going to smack her over her socialist health care system in comparison with Mitt's. This is why I support Romney-not only can he smack Hillary, he has a more conservative alternative.
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."-Ann Coulter
Pitbull of
There are certain issues that behoove a candidate to embrace to soothe the base. For Democrats they have to be dovish and support government healthcare, for Republicans you have to preach about illegal immigration and pledge tax cuts and less spending. The thing is that candidates ALWAYS move to the center in the general election, recognizing that the moderates and independents that couldn't vote in the primary are now able to cast a vote. The general population that as of yet isn't paying attention will not have the extreme view on anything including immigration and you will see every candidate move to the center.
So don't expect anyone you support to take the purist position in the general and win. It just isn't something that happens.
Also, this general assumption that Hillary is the nominee is baffling. Don't count your chickens just yet.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
So I don't know how you can say that it is an issue that will fade in the general. It happens to be one of the few issues where the GOP enjoys broad bi-partisan support from the electorate.
Romney will likely use it like a sledgehammer against Hillary in next fall.
You can get a border fence and attempts to halt illegal immigration. You will also see candidates on both sides attempt to push amnesty through under a different name.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
So according to your analysis Hillary will pass the authenticity test and Romney is making headway despite the fact that no one likes him because he is a robot. Interesting.
I am not under the spell of assuming Hillary will be the Dem nominee. It is astounding the people are assuming that, IMO. Dean at this point was the nominee in 2004. The truth is no one knows who will be on the ballot in November 2008. If we went by national polls it would be Rudy/Hillary already and support for Romney would be moot.
Anyway, Romney will fail the authenticity test I believe mostly because his positions in Mass. and a presentation problem. He does seem willing to say anything and that doesn't always work.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Romney's positions in Mass. give him the unique ability to be moderate and the GOP strong man. He was pro-life on EVERY count as governor. He was pro-family and led the fight against Gay Marriage there. Yet, as a moderate, he is the ONLY GOP that can stiffle Hillary's appeal to American's wanting a healthcare solution and no matter how folks here freak out about that issue, he still is pushing a federalist solution to healthcare led by the Governors. Romney wants to change the healthcare environment nationally so the states can fix it locally. Then there is the tax issue. Romney fixed Mass. budgetary woes with a Super Majority of Democrats in congress there. That should speak myriads to moderates that want somebody that can fix a problem even if his party isn't in power in the legislature. Romney having problems with moderates is a hard sell to me, Romney winning over staunch Republicans has always been his challange. So far, I haven't seen great evidence that he's alienating moderates.
Glad to have you as a Mitt supporter.
Hey I'm in Chicago, maybe we can coordinate something. Let me know what kind of campaign work you guys are doing here-Id love to get involved.
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."-Ann Coulter
Pitbull of
Huck clearly states his disapproval on his website. Some hard-right immigrationers have tried to spin his comments, but don't be fooled.
And suffers from such tremendous white guilt that he thinks this is America's opportunity to make up for slavery. That kind of attitude makes Huck a candidate who is very dangerous to the national security of the United States.
How can he support giving illegal aliens taxpayer subsidized college tuition but refusing to give them the right to stay here legally? I mean, seriously, does that make any sense to you? Well, other than in a "I was for it before I was against it" kind of way.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
How do you post in multiple categories?
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
He was my second choice behind Fred ... and I'd be very happy if won the primary and advanced to the general.
I think he's got some strategic advantages including bringing Michigan into play that some tohers don't.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
Just some observations before I go back to bed, because I'm still sick with Strep throat. I should be in bed, but I'm just jumping out of my skin with boredom. Anyway, here are a few points I'd like to make:
First of all, I watched the African American debates, and Huckabee did not say that he supported affirmative action. In fact, I remember exactly what he said-- he stated that sometimes it's hard for blacks to get "The racist boot lifted off of their shoulders", but that "Government isn't the way to solve the problem."
Second of all, it is an indisputable fact, not up for debate, that if you're caught with crack cocaine, you'll get a dramatically harsher sentence than if you're caught with powder cocaine. For all you Fred supporters who love federalism, why can't a state, like Arkansas, try out sending drug addicts to rehab before sending them to prison--especially since the war on drugs is not exactly a raving success and the status quo does not appear to be working. I think that this plan demonstrates that Huck is an innovative leader who looks for real solutions to real problems. Oh, and by the way, sending drug addicts to rehab costs the tax payers a heck of a lot less money than sending them to prison does.
Third of all, Wayne Dumond, the rapist that Huck paroled, had been castrated in his home awaiting trial, before he received a life sentence for rape. Many of the citizens of Arkansas thought that the sentence was extremely harsh, especially due to Dumond's mutilation. (I'm sure that if Huck had a crystal ball and knew that a castrated man would still commit rape and murder after being paroled, Huck wouldn't have paroled him.) Oh, and by the way, Dummond's testicles were sitting in a jar of formaldehyde on the sheriff's desk--nice, huh--and this same sheriff later went to jail on RICO charges. (Sorry for being so graphic, but this detail is important in order to understand the entirety of the situation.) However, most of the citizens in liberal Massachusetts were against unsupervised weekend furloughs for criminals, and so was a lot of the Democratic party--which made Dukakis seem tone deaf on the issue. In fact, Dukakis had already been wounded by Al Gore on the issue of weekend furloughs for violent felons during the democratic primary of 1988. In other words, Dukakis was already hemorrhaging from the Willie Horton issue by the time he got to the general election--all George HW Bush and Lee Atwater had to do was finish him off. Therefore, comparing Wayne Dumond to Willie Horton is like comparing apples to oranges.
Fourth of all Fred Thompson is the only candidate who will be able to run strong on illegal immigration, because he hasn't been around since 2002. I'm not a Thompson supporter (I'm a Huck supporter), I'm just telling the truth. Both Huck and McCain have supported comprehensive immigration reform, Rudy turned New York into a sanctuary city, and Mitt has flip-flopped on immigration--just like he has on a plethora of other issues. Anyway, Staunch Libertarian is right--none of this immigration driver's licence brouhaha is going to matter much in the general election. Moderate swing voters aren't really going to care that much if Hillary Clinton agrees with Elliot Spitzer's now defunct plan to give driver's licences to illegal immigrants--most of them are going to see this as a state government issue and not something that they vote on during a presidential election. Border security-yes-definitely a federal issue. Driver's licences for illegals--not so much. I know, I know--eighty percent of New Yorkers said that they were against it in a poll--and I'm sure that they would care greatly about it in a statewide gubernatorial election. However, in a presidential election, voters are going to care about other issues such as IRAQ, the GWOT, taxes, spending, border security, the economy, and health care--much, much more. I'm just saying, I wouldn't completely pick a candidate on who can nail Hillary on drivers licences for illegals--I just don't see it being THAT important to people in the general.
And finally, Staunch Libertarian is right about another thing--Mitt comes across as plastic, over-rehearsed, and inauthentic to voters who aren't die-hard Republicans. I know that Mitt is an extremely competent manager, but Hillary's biggest weakness is that she comes off as pandering and inauthentic--and Mitt kind of cancels those negatives of her's out. Republicans might do better to pick a more authentic and seemingly genuine candidate like Huck (my guy) or Fred. Just my thoughts anyway. Sorry so long--I've been in bed all day and I've been saving this up. Y'all have a good night. :-)
Here's the first quote that was problematic directly from Huckabee's mouth at the debate.
And the reason answer is to make sure that there are not only educational opportunities that bring equality, employment opportunities that ensure that people have the same chances as anybody else.
I said very clearly that he did not say affirmative action, but he was pretty open about government providing educational and employment opportunities to "people who don't have opportunities." Now if you don't think he's talking about affirmative action to throw red meat to an overwhelmingly Democratic voting audience you are naive at best.
Here's the problem with this so called racist drug laws-they were originally passed and pushed by the Congressional Black Caucus, which wanted harsher sentencing for crack users in the Black community. I highly recommend that you read Angela Mcglowan's Bamboozled for more information about this. Yes, it is a liberal KnownFact that Black's go to jail for crack which has a far harsher penalty. In the word's of Bill Cosby, so you've made drug laws easier. Whoopee. Now in the Black community, where people actually have to live with these consequences, it's even easier for crack dealers and users to be back on the street because they are caught with a slap on the wrist. How about Huckabee having a pair, and directly taking on the cultural problems in the Black community starting with saying, we know that crack leads to a higher percentage of African-Americans in prison, and we are looking to protect the honest hardworking American people so that they don't have drug dealers and users in their communities. What an idea.
Finally, your dead wrong on illegal immigration. Voters now rank it as the most important issue, instead of Iraq. Illegal immigration is being seen as a national security issue, and with Iraq taking a turn for the better, don't be surprised if the Democrats turn to health care. We need someone who has a comprehensive health care plan that has enacted a statewide plan before. Romney has done that, and he's going to have the upper hand on healthcare, Iraq, and illegal immigration. We aren't talking just New York we are talking every state in America, voters are overwhelmingly looking at illegal immigration as an issue they are concerned about. So that's my personal response to everything you said, sorry so long, its early ;)
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."-Ann Coulter
Pitbull of the VRWC
I only wanted to italicize the first quote and now everything's in italics. Sorry I thought I was doing the HTML right this time I really did. :(
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."-Ann Coulter
Pitbull of the VRWC
Saying this as someone who doesn't use it enough.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Two notes:
First, when you end a tag -- like for italics -- use < /i >, < /b >, whatever -- basically, the same tag as you used before, just with a slash in front of the letter.
Second, you don't need to put a < p > in front of and at the end of every paragraph. One between paragraphs should suffice.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I didn't close the tags-thanks Thomas, I'll remember the backslash from now on.
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."-Ann Coulter
Pitbull of the VRWC
By the way, I also think that McCain's "straight-talking" persona and war-hero image would make him a good candidate to run against Hillary in the general as well. Again, Y'all have a good night. :-)
Is there no merit to the argument that someone who is capable of falling for a modern day scam is not fit to be president? Where do you draw the line? Would being a scientologist not exclude someone either? Are we so convinced by the Left that religion has no place in public discourse that we are willing to give someone a pass for thinking that Native Americans descend from Jews, but God turned their skin brown to punish them for being evil?
Seriously, how is this not a critical must-be-addressed issue when discussing Romney?
...like back to your cave. Keep out of the sunlight too. I'll be surprised if you make it to 3 hours here, unless the moderators have all gone to bed.
Ironically, I came across paulstrait for some other reason entirely (spambotting). You can use the Contact link to let us know about problem posters. :)
Moe
PS: Yes, he's gone now.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Good tips for the late night junkies :D
would it be bigotry to question the judgment of a scientologist? If it is bigotry to question the judgment of someone for the religion they choose, then the definition of bigotry has been hijacked by the Left and the cult of multiculturalism that says everyone is alright, and all choices are equal.
If a candidate for office picks a particular principle to guide their life, why should a discussion about their political fitness completely ignore that? Criticizing someone's choice to embrace a bizarre religion is not the least salient point one could make about a candidate.
If this is bigotry, could you at least explain why you think so, beyond simply asserting that it is?
It is not bigotry if the candidate's belief in a belief system affects any part of their political actions. Would you like to form a non-bigoted question about his political actions because of his faith?
A bigoted question is to hack anti-mormon extrapolations that have nothing to do with the office he is running for and say hey, he must be crazy, so why would I vote for him? Well with that logic, I can show you hundreds of Biblical miracles that atheists could say the same thing to. If you'd like to join their croud, there's plenty of other websites out there for you.
A little info on the topic is that nobody has come forward and joined the Mormon church in Massechusetts because Governor Romney was a Mormon. Mormonism is currently the fourth largest religion in the U.S. That number of members is verified by independent auditors and published publicly every year. And if you feel that 13 million people are just plain crazy and so is Romney and he would make a crazy President, then that's prejudiced and bigoted toward's his religion.
Class is concluded.
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
hatred
Main Entry: ha·tred Your animosity for Romney's religion and intolerance of his belief based on his affiliation without logical argument for the political ramification leads me to say your comment was bigoted. That's not the Left or the cult of multiculturalism, that's Merriam-Webster!
Pronunciation: \ˈhā-trəd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from hate + Old English rǣden condition — more at kindred
Date: 12th century
1 : hate
2 : prejudiced hostility or animosity
No need for the personal attack, sir.
I am not intolerant of Romney, I just don't think he is the best person for the job, and I think the fact that he has used *poor judgment* in the past makes it all the more likely he will use *poor judgment* in the future. I do not think there is a specific policy he will take or not take that is bad or good. I just think he is likely to make decisions that are not based on evidence. Why is this hard? I do not trust people who think invisible angels could reasonably hand them invisible glasses to read invisible golden tablets. That is just weird. To think that is feasible, based on the evidence he has available to him, makes me think his criteria for evidence is not what I would like the president to have. His belief in God is not suspect -- I just am confused by his trust in Joseph Smith.
I am not hostile to Romney, I do not hate Romney, I do no think he is a bad guy... I just don't think he would make a good president.
I take back the USC comment.
You almost made a good arguement, "I just don't think he is the best person for the job, and I think the fact that he has used *poor judgment* in the past makes it all the more likely he will use *poor judgment* in the future." If you make that a political argument based on his record, then that's fine. But if you say, man he's got bad judgement solely because he's Mormon, then that's bigoted plain and simple and defined for you by Webster.
I did not say he was crazy, I just said that he does not have the best judgment because he fell for a scam. Do you not think that 13 million people have fallen for scams of one sort or another? Would you like any of those people to be president? Does that make you a bigot?
I will not play the Christianity vs. Mormonism game. My religion (Christianity) does not require me to believe that Native Americans are descended from Jews, nor that they have brown skin as a punishment for being evil. My religion doesn't require me to believe that a guy was given magic glasses from an angel so that he could read invisible tablets written in "reformed egyptian," etc. This is not a "miracle" -- it is stupidity. If Romney can fall for this, how can anyone believe he will not fall for poor advice about how to deal with problems in the Middle East?
I'm not saying he is a bad person or that he is hell-bound or anything else of the sort. I am just saying that his choice of religion makes me question what other choices he is going to make.
And if you seriously believe that a candidate's belief system doesn't affect "any part of their political actions," well I'm guessing you aren't afraid of Islamofascism? Does the religion of the president really make zero difference? Really? It doesn't give you any kind of insight about the kind of decisions they will make or the criteria they will use when making decisions? Maybe I am out of it, but from my perspective, I feel that my religion plays a significant role in my choices.
Because an atheist or Hinduist can question your judgement solely because you may believe Moses parted the Red Sea. It's all about perspective. It's fine if you believe that a group of people are duped because of what they believe that's your freedom and perogative, but if you want to argue and extrapolate somebody's political behavior unfounded in the real evidence of his record and solely because you are prejudiced against his religion is bigotry and is not welcome.
You should not speculate about what I believe. In any event, Mormonism is all of Christianity plus a bunch of really weird beliefs that are offered with very little evidence to back them up yet are alleged to have occurred relatively recently. Hindus and others can question my belief system and what kind of decisions I will make as a result of having picked my beliefs, just like I can question the belief systems of others. That is fundamentally what we do. I am prejudiced against him because of his religious beliefs -- but I am also prejudiced against socialists for their pseudo-religious beliefs about history and dialectic (not to mention their economic beliefs). At the end of the day, all beliefs are related, and all offer insight into how a person makes decisions.
Here is a question for you-- if a scientologist were running for president, would the fact that he or she was a scientologist cause you any concern?
"You should not speculate about what I believe." Why? You are doing that with Romney. You not only speculate about what he believes but you take anti-Mormon views and say he has poor judgment because he believes in some general tenet of anti-Mormon extrapolated crap even though he has never claimed to. You are blatantly speculating about his personal beliefs without quotes or cause.
I know many Mormons that do NOT believe ALL the Native American Indians are descendants of the folks in the Book of Mormon, many believe that the small sub-set of people talked about in the book were leaders in a land with many other people from different lands, not just "Nephites or Lamanites". You don't even consider this yet many Mormons believe that, further you go off half cocked saying Romney believes this and you sir have no proof of that.
If a scientologist were running, I would definitely investigate his political actions and his beliefs, but I would not go off half cocked saying so and so has bad judgment because he/she believes some unpleasant tenet of a faith without the candidate coming directly out and saying he/she did believe exactly what I was claiming that individual to believe.
Romney has not validated any of your claims, you just claim that since he is a member of a church he must believe all the tenets in the exact way you are negatively spinning them. Shame on you. If you'd like to go after Dennis Kucinich, then go ahead and quote his debate statement on UFOs... that was a political answer to a belief question.
Here's the thing; America has had dozens, perhaps even hundreds of Mormons elected to public office all across the country - from Reed Smoot right down to Orrin Hatch, Jon Huntsman, George & Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, etc.
If you have any evidence that these Mormon office holders have proven themselves less capable than non-Mormon counterparts or any more susceptible to being misled by bad advice in politics or any other field of endeavor, then I'll be happy to read it.
Otherwise, you just exposed yourself for an idiot. And chances are that you are far far more easily misled than any random Mormon I point to walking down a street in Salt Lake City.
PS: Just to upset you even more; I am a Muslim.
I simply said that a man's religion is not a zero, but it is something worth considering. The blanket rejection of this view strikes me as more bigoted than my view (although what would I know if it is the case that I am a bigot).
I am not sure why you think your faith in Islam would upset me. If you were running for president, it would be something I would consider.
If you don't think Harry Reid and the others have shown poor judgment as leaders, I don't know where to go with you. Can I connect it directly to their mormonism? Of course not -- but I don't think their mormonism CAUSES them to make poor decisions. Rather, I think the fact that they made a poor decision to believe the tenets of mormonism suggests they have poor judgment in general and are thus prone to make other poor decisions. I have not said that mormons as a whole are systematically worse decision makers than non-mormons. I just think it is one concern that should at least be addressed when thinking about a politician.
To deny this perspective seems bigoted to me. But in any event, I am done posting about Mitt Romney. I have made my point, and I am not going to persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded by what I said. If you want to continue to bash me as a bigot, continue as long as it brings you pleasure.
And I must say I find your attempt here very amusing, and very transparent, if I might add. Very Kerryesque.
Let's look at this;
... I think the fact that they [Mormons] made a poor decision to believe the tenets of mormonism suggests they have poor judgment in general and are thus prone to make other poor decisions. I have not said that mormons as a whole are systematically worse decision makers than non-mormons.
So, Mormons, by virtue of their being Mormons, have poor judgment in general and are thus prone to make poor decisions. However, at the same time, they are not worse decision makers than non-Mormons.
How does this work?
I never liked Orin Hatch, and Harry Reid is a dumbass.
Not to be flip but the guy has a point, Would you support a Scientologist, or a Moonie? I know I wouldn't. I know that Mormonism is a bit different as it has been around a little longer, but it seemed to people in the 19th century exactly like Scientology seems to us now.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
... and Orrin Hatch can be a weiner, but that it is not a function of their Mormonism is what I'm trying to say.
I would like to respond to your comments:
First of all, I don't think that "Providing educational opportunities and employment opportunities" necessarily means affirmative action--it could just mean that Huck wants to give more school vouchers to inner city children and provide more rigorous testing for teachers in order to measure competency, and have more minorities sign up for the armed forces. So, I guess I agree with you to a certain extent that the actual meaning of Huck's statement was up for debate; however, I think that he cleared up what he meant when he stated that individual racism was still a problem, but that the government wasn't the one to solve it.
Second of all, Bill Cosby is doing a fantastic job as a black cultural leader who is pointing out real problems with the black culture. Since Huck is running for president and not to be the next black cultural leader, I think he can leave pointing out problems with the black culture to Bill Cosby. Now, while we are on the subject of Bill Cosby, if you saw his appearance on Meet the Press, he also talked about how unfair the drug laws are with regard to crack vs. powder cocaine. Cosby stated that by sending these young crack addicts to prison, instead of getting them help, you are simply creating a bigger, badder criminal, who will come out of jail and not be able to get a job, and will thus commit real crimes and go back to jail--all on the taxpayers dime. Not real smart if you ask me. By the way, it is not a liberal fact or a conservative fact, but just a plain old regular fact that crack cocaine carries a way harsher penalty than powder coke does, and that the war on drugs has not been a success. What I love about Huck, is that he doesn't always look for liberal or conservative solutions to problems--in his own words, he looks for "effective" solutions to problems, and this solution sounds extremely effective to me. When did we all become so partisan, that we stopped being practical?
Third of all, I've stated repeatedly on this website that health care is going to be huge in this next election--which is another reason that I support Huck. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee came up with a very effective and popular health care program titled ARKids, which provided health care to children from low-income families. More importantly, though, if you've ever heard Huck speak on health care, you'd know that he was EXTREMELY knowledgeable on the issue. I'm a medical student, so I can tell when someone is BSing on this issue. Anyway, when Huck was at the Lance Armstrong cancer debate--which by the way Mitt didn't even show up to--he discussed, in great detail, how patients with chronic health care problems are accounting for around 85% of all health care costs and are largely responsible for exorbitant insurance rates. By the way, Internal Medicine doctors refer to these patients as HONDAs--Hypertensive, Obese, Non-compliant, Diabetic type 2, and Atherosclerotic. And, most of these patients' health care problems could be prevented if they took better care of themselves--AKA lost weight, quit, smoking, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, got preventative care. Huck is so right on this one--for HONDAs, who are the scourges of ERs everywhere--an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. For instance, it would be much, much cheaper for a doctor to treat someone, now, with a smoking cessation program (which most insurance companies don't cover, go figure), than to treat them when they get full blown COPD and emphysema. And it would be way cheaper for a doctor to put a patient on a special diet for his diabetes, than to have to amputate his foot because of gangrene due to bad circulation. In other words, Huck is right--if you want to lower health care costs and insurance premiums, you have to prevent more chronic illnesses.
Fourth of all, I never said that immigration won't be a big issue in this next election. I said that border security will be much more important to the average swing voter than whether or not New York governor, Elliot Spitzer, at one time, considered giving driver's licences to illegals, and whether Hillary Clinton might have agreed with him or not. People see this as a state issue, whereas they see border security as a federal one. I just think that suburban voters will have much bigger issues on their minds that concerns them and their families. Face it, before this recent MSNBC debate, NO ONE was talking about driver's licences for illegals, and in a week everyone will have forgotten about it. I'm just saying, Republicans can't put all their eggs in that basket.
And finally, I just can't follow your logic of why you think that Mitt (not to knock him or anything) would be better than Huck on dealing with Iraq. Both men were governors, except that Huck won statewide election more than once--which, by the way, I think could prove to be a weakness for Mitt. Anyway, unless saving the Olympics qualifies as foreign policy experience, then you lost me.
Y'all have a nice day and God bless. :-)
In essence, Cosby has been rung back in back by the race pimps he used to rail against. Cosby previously talked about the ineffectiveness of complaining about drug laws vs working to rid the Black community itsef. I would recommend that you read Juan Williams Enough in order to fully undersand the full switch of Cosby's position's. Gamecock wrote an excellent critique of Cosby's switching positions in that MTP. He also took time to call Clarence Thomas, one of my personal heroes an Uncle Tom, one of the looney Black Left's favorite targets, just to let them know that he is still one of them.
To add to another point, the fact of the matter is that Huckabee has governed as a big government conservative. I give this critique as a neo-con, so let me be the first to say that I am not against big government conservatism, but when someone has a history of using the federal government to solve problems, why would he approach this issue any differently than he has other issues.
With all due respect Susannah, your saying I'm a medical student so I know when someone is BSing is condescending at best, much like when liberals play the chickenhawk card because you didn't go to war so you don't have any good ideas about how war should be run. I think that Romney's healthcare plan is a good one, and one that would work for the majority of the country. America knows it's obese, and it needs preventitive measures, but what are you going to do? Provide no healthcare and tell America to lose weight? Or, here's an even more frightening road that I believe Huckabee would be inclined to do, which is get in with the banning foods craze. I would see him raising taxes on unhealthy things like cigarettes and alcohol, so as to bleed us from using them, as well as looking to pass laws against trans fats, saturated fats. It sounds far fetched, but I live in Chicago right now where these things have already happened, and I would like to know just how Huckabee is going to make the country get healthy. I excercise of my own volition, and I don't need the government to force me, and if I want to die at age 40, that too is my right as an American. What Mitt does is offer a comprehensive plan that has aleady worked without raising taxes and without being a single payer socialist system. I would bet my yearly salary Huckabee's plan is going to involve raising taxes, because he's already proven as governor that he is willing to tax the American people.
As for Iraq, I believe that any of the Republicans save HWMNBN are going to be good on Iraq, with the exception of McCain whom I believe would be exceptional, and I think will make a fine SecDefense for the next Republican administration.
I won't vote against Huckabee if he somehow wins the nomination, but let's not distort who he is. He is essentially Zell Miller with an R next to his name.
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."-Ann Coulter
Pitbull of the VRWC
Blacks must drop victimhood and reclaim dignity
African Americans can succeed despite the forces of poverty and systemic racism. But first we must shed the mind-set of victimhood.
By Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint
New York and Boston
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1108/p09s01-coop.htm
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
He must have snuck it into the Press before his Uncle Jesse read it and tld him about it. Doesn't matter Cos doesnt " want to help anybody", in his own words. Sorry for the snark GC, I still haven't forgiven Cos for his MTP slight on the good Justice Thomas, the best judge the Court has, more of an orginalist than Scalia.
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."-Ann Coulter
Pitbull of the VRWC
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
But I could see how I could have come across that way. And, I wasn't trying to say that Mitt's plan was bad either. I was just stating that I thought Huck had really hit the nail on the head by stating that increasing preventative care would decrease health care costs and insurance premiums for everyone.
Anyway, since you asked what would I do, I will tell you--and it doesn't involve banning trans fats. What I would do is start requiring insurance companies to cover preventative care, which right now, they really don't do. For instance, let's say hypothetically the other day I had a patient whose blood sugar levels were what could be called pre-diabetic, and she had a family history of diabetes. Therefore, I wanted to schedule her for a yearly physical, in order to screen her blood sugar, and make sure it was in the normal range. Well guess what? Her insurance company wouldn't pay for her to have yearly physicals in order to screen her for diabetes--it would only pay for her to go to the doctor once she already had an existing problem. In other words, it won't pay for her to go to the doctor in order to have her finger pricked to check to see if her blood glucose levels are high--which, by the way, is very cheap. However, once she actually develops symptoms like neuropathy and poor circulation, because she's developed full blown diabetes due to lack of screening, her insurance will then pay for her to have to take extremely expensive drugs (like oral hypoglycemics) for the rest of her life, as well as to go on dialysis, and even possibly have a limb amputated due to gangrene. Not to mention, many patients already have end-organ damage (eyes and kidneys) by the time they are actually diagnosed with diabetes. By the way, besides the obvious fact that this sucks royally for the patient, it runs up EVERY ONE'S insurance premiums and health care coverage to sky-high levels.
Oh, and here's another example of frustrating bureaucracy at work. I've had multitudes of patients who were a life-long smokers and who were beginning to develop the early stages of emphysema. There is a drug, called Chantix, which will help patients quit smoking, but guess what? Right again, most insurance companies won't pay for it. But once a patient actually develops full-blown emphysema and COPD, then the insurance companies will pay for the patient to take a plethora of drugs (like Advair or Brovana), as well as carry around a tank of oxygen for the rest of their life. I could go on all night with endless examples, but I think you all get the point.
Now, please don't ask me to explain any of this to you, because I think that I would have an easier time understanding quantum physics, than the "logic", or lack there of, that insurance companies use in their decisions of what they will and will not pay for. And I'm sorry if I sound angry, but you could not possibly understand how frustrating it is, day in and day out, to have these ridiculous bureaucrats, who know nothing about medicine, tell you you how to treat your patients. Anyway, Huck has stated, in numerous interviews that he would make preventative health care and screening part of his program, which is music to my ears--A.) Because he's right on--in medicine, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it will save us ALL a ton of money. B.) Because it sure would make my job easier.
Y'all have a good night and God bless. :-)
BR, I'm proud of you. I'm glad the bots didn't dissuade you from choosing the right man for the job. I share some of the same reservations about the other candidates as you do. I endorsed Romney several months ago and I have yet to be disappointed. He keeps looking better and better in every debate. Well done, sir. Good post.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill