Mitt Romney Impresses
By Erick Posted in 2008 | FRC Action — Comments (89) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
(Again, these are my impressions typing live, while Mitt is speaking)
Mitt Romney gets a big reception tonight here at the Washington Briefing. Jay Sekulow introduces him. Jay gets a big reception.
Jay's introduction revolves around Mitt Romney's marriage fight in Massachusetts.
Mitt comes in to a grand anthem. The room goes nuts -- a bigger reception than any of the other candidates. He begins pitch perfect.
"I'm pro-family on every level, from personal to political," he says. He says his "driving ambition" is to have his kids and grandkids grow up in a national that his strong and prosperous.
He's got this Mr. Rogers thing going on right now talking about family. Think Mr. Rogers as President. You can't help but like him, but you can't help but think it's a bit too canned or polished — the message and pitch are just perfect.
He praises single parents like his sister Jane, but says "two parents are the ideal setting." He wants to teach kids that before they have babies they should get married. "It really is time to make out of wedlock birth out of fashion again." And you know what? You believe him. He seems just so sincere. And the message resonates. Then he gets "hats off to Bill Cosby for telling it like it is."
He moves on to talk about inner-city families where young boys have no father figures. "And then there are the broad national tragedies built on this implication. . . . The nation cannot thrive" he says, talking about so many kids without dads.
Ann Romney, he says, has worked all her life to teach kids how to make good choices and if she's first lady, that'll continue to be her mission, he says. "I'll convene a White House summit" to look at family issues. "I'll realign government incentives to encourage marriage, not discourage it."
This guy sounds like he's already the nominee. It's like the other candidates were here to sell themselves and Romney has taken the difference approach -- presume he's already been sold to them and show them what they've gotten. It's not a bad approach for him. It works.
This is the most professional candidate speech so far. He pauses at the intended applause lines. He gets the applause. He laughs at the punch lines and everyone else does too.
Oh, and he wants to reinstate the family impact statement. They like that. I don't know what the heck it is.
Now he's on marriage and the crowd goes nuts when he promises a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as that between a man and woman. "Every child deserves a mother and a father," he says. BTW, tonight I saw a gay couple with adopted Asian kids for the first time. It was rather interesting.
He says he was a pro-life governor and there are several people in the crowd who make a guffaw sound. He keeps going. Interestingly though, in a very long list of things relating to life he will oppose, he says he will oppose "embryonic cloning," but he does not say a word about embryonic stem cell research. It's extremely noticeable because of the long list of things he listed.
"I'm going to fight the modern plague," he says. "Internet pornography." It's a big transition from abortion. "Computer pornography gives a whole new meaning to the term home invasion," he says. Then he says he'd require every computer sold in America to have an easy to use pornography filter. He says people who prey on kids online will be "one strike and your out," and when they get out they'll have to wear "ankle bracelets for life."
He wants "every family to have healthcare." This is where he stumbles. He says he'll do it without Hillary Care or new taxes. The audience reacts and he stops. No one does anything. He continues.
Now he says we need a federal tax credit for parents who home school their kids. The folks here love that.
"The anti-religion of secularism in this country has got to come to an end. We are a nation under God and We. Do. Place. Our. Trust. In. Him," he says. The crowd roars. "By the way, did you know I'm a Mormon? I've heard a few people think they can't support a Mormon, but that's just because they've seen Harry Reid." The crowd doesn't really laugh well. It's fractured.
"We're not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton," he says and brings the crowd to a roar again. He then gets impassioned about this nation remaining strong. He says we begin by strengthening the family.
He goes on to say we know where to begin, we know what to do, and "I can wait for us to do it together." The crowd gives him a big standing ovation. The music is again a triumphant anthem.
And he's gone.
The funny thing listening to this really Presidential speech -- and it was in tone, substance, and delivery -- is that you almost wanted him to be less polished. As much as Fred is unpolished and you want him more polished, you want the opposite of Romney
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Electability Factor — Comments (8) »
Mitt Romney Impresses 89 Comments (0 topical, 89 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...he always seems to slip some boneheaded remark in that sounds like pandering when addressing values voters. It's not that I disagree with Romney's view on porn, but it's not something I think that the federal government should be filtering.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I can come up with about 217 things. The values things just don't get me so fired up with a war on terror our nation doesn't want to win, rising healthcare costs, and a broken border and immigration crisis. Gay marriage ain't at the top of my list either.
"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand
...at the "Values Voters Conference", so the speech will be tailored to the audience. Mitt has addresses the other issues many times. The speech he gave tonight reads great (I wasn't there), and if the reports of his performance are true, it looks as if he did better tonight than he has in the past when addressing "culture war" type stuff.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
So he's a Pander Bear then? Slick Mittens is as fake as a three dollar bill.
Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!
.. when your spouse files her no-fault divorce, and you end up forced out of your family because to your spouse, the security of guaranteed support money looked more attractive than the uncertainty of "for better or worse" where her lifestyle depends on decisions your bosses are making about whether or not your job could be done overseas. When you are one of the millions of devoted fathers whose kids are victim of INVOLUNTARY fatherlessness, tell me then how you feel about "values issues". Sure, there is a war in Iraq that we need to talk about. But there's also a War on Fathers every day in our courts.
============================================================
"It Takes A Village To Raise A Child" - HRC
"[government] must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people" - Mein Kampf, pp 404-408
Hitlery Clinton?
That's an easy one: because kids can access porn.
Repeating: kids can access porn.
There needs to be a means by which the distribution of porn online is regulated. You wouldn't want porn produces to display their handiwork on network television. Why should they be allow to show it on the world wide web?
That's just my 2 cents.
Romney/Thompson 2008
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Parents cannot be every where with a kid, and many kids have parents that are plain neglectful. Not all parents are created equally.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
www.illinoisreview.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
Why are parents always expected to keep their kids out of trouble- but no effort is ever extended to actually empower and help parents to keep their kids out of trouble.
Sure, parents can keep the computers in a public room- but still- can they watch their kids every second of the day? And what about when they go visit their friends?
I think we ought to eliminate all porn on the internet. If people want porn let them get off their bums, get in their car and drive 10 minutes down to the nearest video store. Surely asking people to do that is not going to destroy our freedoms- nor do I think it too much to ask.
The Internet is practically a public street- and going just about anywhere on the internet you can take a wrong turn and end up somewhere you don't want to be. It's like Las Vegas- and I wouldn't want to raise a kid there.
Why do we insist on making things convenient for the porn lovers? Shouldn't we instead make it convenient for parents instead?
Now some people might say this is impossible- but there is nothing easier. You have to understand, Porn is not free speech- it's commerce. It's only on the internet because it makes money.
All you need is to issue a regulation that forbids the use of credits cards to buy obscene material over the internet. Make it so if someone does charge porn to his credit card that he still has to pay the credit card company, but the Credit card company isn't allowed to transfer the money to the porn company.
Effective
Self-Enforcing (as Credit card companies have a nice reward for cooperating)
Self-Funding
Best of all: Explicitly Constitutional, as Congress has the right to regulate all interstate commerce- and this isn't after all banning the distribution of porn over the internet- merely the ability of people to make money doing it.
People will still be able to get their porn- but they'll have to go to a store and buy it, or just order it over cable- and parents now won't have to constantly worry about what their children are looking at- as the number of porn sites on the web will quickly drop to a insignificant number.
The Internet is worse than a public street: It's a public street that's not under US control.
So no matter who's President, parents are actually going to have to keep an eye on their kids, imagine that.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Don't let your kid into a Mariott hotel either, where Romney had nothing to say against porn when he was profiting from it. Romney = fake.
Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
to turn off the adult movies. Much easier than controlling Internet porn.
But I do agree with Neil - it's the parents' responsibility to monitor and control what kids can access. There is no way to cut off obscene content on the web. It is impossible. We could completely outlaw porn sites in the US and put filters on the routes coming into the US, and there would still be substantial "leak through"...witness the failure of filtering software to completely/effectively block obscene content (not to mention the filtering of sites they SHOULDN'T be filtering!).
I am one of the most vociferous conservative Christians here at Redstate, but with this particular issue, I am with the more libertarian types. Filters and laws just don't work. The better strategy is responsible and diligent parenting. Put the computers in a public space, put URL and key loggers on your computers, and tell (and prove to) your kids you are watching every move they make.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
your kids that porn is bad?
If parents aren't going to do that, I really don't see how the government can. Are they supposed to send moral guardians to your house or something?
There's PLENTY of porn out there that doesn't require a credit card. I also note if kids are using pay-sites, they're either doing it with their parent's permission, or by stealing. Again, this is something parents should be dealing with - not by playing enforcer, but by teaching values. There simply is no substitute.
The Internet is practically a public street... and I wouldn't want to let my child go unsupervised down a busy public street anymore than I would the internet.
Yes, parents need to watch the children every second they are on the computer. Not just because of porn but because there are people online who would take advantage of them and hurt them. And its the PARENTS duty to protect their children.
I think that banning porn from the internet would set a dangerous precedent. Ok so porn offends people and is morally wrong. What is the next thing that comes up that offends people: Politics, Religion, Satire Humor involving PeeWee Herman? If you start infringing on 1st amendment rights in one area, other areas are soon to follow.
I am not personally offended by the sculpture 'David'. But I know that some people are would it be next on the censure chopping block?
There needs to be a means by which the distribution of porn online is regulated
It is called a credit card!
I have to call you on your assessment of Mister Rogers. The guy was obviously genuine and passionate. Not canned. (As an aside, I'd say that Romney is obviously professional and serious, which is not the same as canned, either.).
Or being rich and successful. Or having a wife and kids. Or having a working knowledge of the economy.
Not to make to much of this, but of course Mr. Rogers was rich and he was certainly successful. He was married and had two kids. He was so well loved that car thieves returned his car when they realized who is belonged to and left him a note saying that they were sorry. Given some of the wise business decisions he made I would argue that he have quite a good knowledge of the economy.
Where do you get off on slamming Mr. Rogers?
Mr. Rogers got his car stolen? From the mailman or one of his puppets? LOL.
The leading suspect was Lady Elaine Fairchilde. ;)
Back off Mr. Rogers man... or your gonna have to deal with the Friendly Neighbor Gang.
"The guy was obviously genuine and passionate. Not canned."
I take articulate, polished and on-message over the inarticulate, unpolished and message-muddled alternative. We've had enough of the latter with the Bush clan and it leaves our base dispirited.
The last politician we had who actually practiced and tried hard to get his point across professionally was Reagan. Yet "The Great Communicator" was the real deal.
Although I prefer Fred's federalist approach to marriage and the social libertarian in me hates the nanny state solution to internet porn, I'm with him on so many other issues that I'm willing to nitpick after he's won the presidency. :-)
There are two candidates who are running high energy campaigns and are capitalists on steroids - and they are Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. And while I concede that Rudy sounds slightly better on the economy (even though he has not signed the no new taxes pledge), I'll take Mitt's slightly less good stance on the economy because he is immensely better on social issues.
And on judicial nominations I trust Mitt Romney. I am still quite uncomfortable with Rudy. Justices Maureen Mahoney and Alex Kozinski are just two potential justices that I cannot get excited about.
What about Miguel Estrada? Ted Olsen? Larry Thompson?
Conservatives were willing to go to the mats for Olsen not 3 months ago to becomse Atty General. His legal team is by far the best, and most conservative. Ted Olsen would have a MAJOR role in Rudys legal department and SC choices. I dont think theres much to worry about, for electability reasons he has to pick conservatives. BTW your becoming my nemisis on this site:)
Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.
''People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away," Romney said.
Romney, who is considering a run for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, has cast himself to GOP audiences as a lonely Republican voice in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. But his judicial appointments led one out-of-state activist to suggest the choices might hurt Romney among Republican voters. Observers in the Bay State legal community, meanwhile, said they see a contradiction between Romney's judicial choices and his conservative rhetoric, including his stated opposition to same-sex marriage."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/25/romney_jurist_picks...
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
I think he'd be fine on judges, but his record on it was mixed.
Tommy Oliver
www.race42008.com
That's laughable. Please explain to me how judges are elected in Massachusetts and maybe I will take you seriously. Have you ever heard of the Governor's Council? Probably not.
I'm happy to hear he gave such a good speech and got so many people involved, even though he kind of bombed on the joke about Harry Reid.
As far as his being "too polished" is concerned, at this point I'd be more worried if he *stopped*. Because at that point people could say he was a flip-flopper. ;)
Romney is Romney and that's his persona. At least he feels comfortable in his skin even if some other people don't believe it. I would hope at this point that he *doesn't* try to become more of whatever someone else wants.
Great report, Erick.
is probably making a mistake, at least among Republicans. I do think Mitt would be smart if he'd just slow down his delivery a little bit. He always sounds like he's trying to get 5 minutes of information into a 30-second answer. That's why he sounds "too polished" and/or "slick." Fast talk is associated with snake oil salesmen, whether it's fair to the salesmen or not.
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."
For the first part of his speech, I sat here with this stupified look on my face. Maybe it was just watching it on the computer that made him look fake, or maybe it's that he talks like my little league coach cheering us on. I don't know. Maybe it's because I'm really southern and his style just grates on me, but he did get better as he went along.
Everyone ate up his tax credit for parent's who home school. Didn't surprise me.
The guy always just looks too perfect on TV. Seriously. I love it.
For Our God and Our Country,
Tony Cruz
Last year proposed the Republicans promote family by giving a $5,000 per child tax credit that would be refundable against payroll as well as income taxes and let the parents decide how to raise their children.
I like Ponnuru's idea because by givin a credit to everyone and making it applicable against payroll taxes will help middle income voters who pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes and expand the benefits of tax cuts to the middle class.
Is a long-overdue idea and I am glad Romney is bringing it up.
maybe its time for the hail mary play
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzFiMGU3YTE5NTc4MGZjNzcxZDY4YzE...
Come on Gov. Romney, let's be honest at least.
On every piece of legislation in the state he came down on the side of life and of families.
If you think he is lying about that you need to show some evidence.
How about how the man campaigned and what his words were? What did he have to say on the subject? I think people aren't just pulling this stuff out of thin air. Byron York is just completely misguided? So are the many others?
Massachusetts Citizens For Life Pioneer Valley Chapter Chairman Kevin Jourdain Remarks On May 10, 2007:
“Mitt Romney was a great Governor, who served with honor and distinction. But most importantly, he was a pro-life Governor. He vetoed a number of pro-abortion pieces of legislation and made many pro-life appointments. He was always there for us. He’s a busy man these days and we are extra fortunate that he and his wife Ann could be with us. Governor, you have been an inspirational leader in many ways. And if I may say so, Mitt, you’re looking very presidential. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our friend, Governor Mitt Romney, to the podium as our 2007 Mullins Award Winner for Outstanding Political Leadership.”
Mitt Romney wants to ban gay marriage like GWB wants to close the border. I just dont believe him. Ive seen the man on tape badger Ted Kennedy for not being tolerant enough.
Back when he was running against Ted Kennedy, here was Mitt's position:
"Romney had supported RU-486 while governor" - http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjFiNTVhYjI4ZTI4MzZhY2I0ZGQ1NmV...
"I am not unaware of my opponent's considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent's record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will." - http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjQwZWJhNWE2YWIwZWMxNzJiZDU1MDM...
Now, I will support the nominee as long as he's a Christian Conservative, but let's not pretend that Mitt is someone he's not. He is an opportunist plain and simple. He will say what needs to be said to get elected and if he's elected, he'll follow the blowing winds.
Do you really believe that being pro-gay rights in 1994 meant pro gay marriage? If you do you have no clue, but my guess is you don't believe that, you are just being insincere in order to discredit Romney.
The facts are the Romney has the exact same position on what rights gays should have. The only thing that has changed is the definition of what "pro-gay rights" means. Romney has always been opposed to gay marriage and you have no evidence to show otherwise, your willful ignorance just allows you to continue posting lies about his positions.
As far as the RU-486, it's not true and you have no evidence to show that either. Your link only points out that opposing campaigns have tried to spread that lie, nothing approaching proof or evidence.
Look at the endorsements Romney has received. DeMoss, Sekulow, Bopp Jr, etc. The list of prominent evangelicals and social conservative leaders who are endorsing Romney gets longer everyday. These people have spent their entire life fighting for the unborn and for family values. They know Romney and THEY BELIEVE HIM.
Add Jack Willke to the list. If you don't know who these people are, google them because their endorsements are a big deal and should at least prove to you that Romney's conversion is sincere in they eyes of people who know him.
"I'm going to fight the modern plague," he says. "Internet pornography." It's a big transition from abortion. "Computer pornography gives a whole new meaning to the term home invasion," he says. Then he says he'd require every computer sold in America to have an easy to use pornography filter.
Just what we need. Earth to Mitt, I've never bought a computer that came with an OS pre-installed, ever. What about the thousands and thousands of server boxes sold to businesses? Would you require all of them to have this crapola software installed on them, too? This is exactly the kind of boneheaded anti-freedom crap that I don't want to see in someone running for assistant dogcatcher, much less the highest office in the land.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
there were laws that made pornography illegal. If you wanted to buy it, you had to walk into a smutty little shop and walk out with it in a brown paper wrapper tucked underneath your jacket. And honestly, I don't have a problem with that. So this requirement for a porn filter in every computer doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
If a candidate were to propose an outright ban on pornography, I'd support him, because it's as addictive and mentally and morally destructive as drugs. I would posit that those sick perverts who were arrested this week for child pornography didn't start out wathcing and making that stuff. They probably started with a Playboy or garden-variety adult, heterosexual porn. The First Amendment doesn't give one the right to peddle filth. BTW, I feel the same way about some of the outright seditious speech that the Democrat Party and its supporters spew forth daily.
And I don't want to here about any "slippery slope". This is a democracy in a republic. We have the power to stop any step that goes too far. If we don't, it's our fault. Somehow, the existance of a progressive income tax and the criminalization of drugs haven't led us into an Orwellian socialist police state nightmare.
unless you have stats to prove this. I think prior sexual abuse is more of a factor in the making of one of those sick perverts than picking up a Playboy.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
they'll be hard to find from a source you'll grant to be objective, because the people with a vested interest in keeping it available don't want them found. It took me some digging through the results of a Google search, and while I don't normally read MSNBC, this looks like a pretty good qualitative analysis of the issue. The key point is near the end of the article:
“When you have a compulsive gambler,” says Carnes, “you’re not taking a chemical. ... In other words, we produce chemicals in our brain whether we use an outside chemical or not.”
Carnes is director of sexual disorders services at Arizona's Meadows Treatment Center and one of the primary sources for the article. If you do the Google search, you'll pass plenty of reports on statistics before you find the MSNBC article, but since they are all from Christian treatment centers and given the tone of your post I'm sure you will simply dismiss them out of hand.
But enough of the thread jack, this is supposed to be about Mitt and his speech. And while I'm supporting Fred, if I can't have my first choice, Mitt is my second.
They were even strongly enforced until...
You guessed it- Bill Clinton was elected and suddenly those laws were ignored.
There was an interesting article in Slate about laws that go away because no one enforces them anymore.
And, I'm really beginining to develop a dislike for the man. He claimed tonight to have been a pro-life governor, but he promised in his campaign to protect abortion rights and says that his conversion didn't occur until 2005. "Well, maybe I was pro-choice, but I didn't act that way. Or, maybe I was pro-life, but I didn't talk that way. I can't remember. Besides, what does it matter? I'm in sync now that I'm running for the GOP nomination. TRUST ME." And, did anyone notice the blatant sucking-up to James Dobson? He praised Focus on the Family or Dobson personally at least three times (the references stand out even more in the printed text). I know he's been working Dobson, but this is just so obvious. The more I see and hear him, the more he comes across as a GOP version of Bill Clinton -- say whatever is necessary to whoever you have to say it to. If Romney is the nominee and Sam Nunn runs as an independent, I'm going with Nunn.
He never said he was pro choice even when he ran against Ted Kennedy. The only concession he made was that he pledged not to change the abortion laws already on the books. But he vetoed every attempt made by the legislature to advance abortion rights so in that sense he can claim to have been a pro life governor.
In the same way that the pro life credentials of legislators are judged according to their votes, the pro life credentials of Governors are judged according to the legislation they sign or veto. And Romney's record is clear in that regard.
I've been plundering around the political sites tonight, trying to learn how others saw Romney's speech, and ran across a fairly long post by Jonathan Martin at The Politico. About a third of the way down is this comment:
"The crowd seeded with his supporters, Romney won repeated applause during his speech."
He couldn't even take the chance of speaking to an audience without populating it with ringers?? After I read this I realized that I did see a couple of occasions where some people, who seemed to be strategically placed in the crowd, tried to initiate standing ovations which the rest of the audience didn't pick up on. Then I saw a note by Byron York at National Review Online saying that there were "accusations" that the Value Voter's straw poll process is "being manipulated by the Romney campaign." Romney's people (and Ron Paul's as well) have been trying to get supporters to pack the online portion of the straw poll. There were also rumors of crowd packing and I guess that Martin's comment seems to tie with that.
I get angrier each time I see something new.
Are you suggesting Romney should have told his supporters not to come to the event or not to cheer when they agree with something he said?
Of course he is going to have supporters at an event. Maybe you haven't noticed but Romney has more endorsements from prominent evangelicals than any other candidate. Romney has support among many people in the evangelical movement and even though many still have questions it is silly to believe that he wouldn't have supporters at an event like this.
According to reports FDT had many more supporters at the event with Huckabee and Romney next and just about everyone else's campaign was unnoticeable.
According to what reports exactly? Have a link that shows FDT had more supporters than Romney or Huckabee? I'd be interested in reading that. So far, I've only heard of Mitt and Ron Paul trying to cart their people in en mass and donating online in order to get a chance to vote. Don't bother trying to see what the people want, instead bus em in until you get the vote you like.
I've read a couple of bloggers who were present tonight who mentioned that Romney was busing in supporters. What pisses me off about this is that this is supposed to be a convention of evangelical grassroots activists and the sessions and straw poll are supposed to elicit THEIR opinions. It's one thing to have people passing out buttons and literature, and quite another to be trying to pack the event and manipulate the results. I cannot trust someone who tries to rig things like this. Romney is coming across as no better than Paul.
Hill we better have a candidate that goes pedal to the metal who ever it is. Effort should be encouraged.
They're trying to get a sense of what these people think, not what Romney's or Ron Paul's bussed in people think. Why can't we just see what this group really thinks? Scared?
They are all free to do whatever they want. Maybe Romney wants it more.
"Scared?" Why would I be? Fred, Rudy or Romney, I don't know yet.
that actually is organized, has supporters go to events, and tries to win straw polls ... oh, the horror.
What next? The shocking story of him spending money on media buys in Iowa?
As for the straw poll, dont worry, the Paulistinians are all over that one.
I understand that campaigns are going to bring in their supporters. But, I saw Thompson's speech and although he had people there I didn't see the blatant attempts at crowd manipulation that I saw with Romney. Maybe I wouldn't see (or think I see) so much of it if he didn't seem like such a combination of a Stepford Candidate and a chameleon. Thompson needs serious improvement in his stump style, but at least I feel that he's telling me what he really thinks and not just what he thinks I want to hear.
.. present themselves as best they can.
So when Fred has supporters show up its shows genuine support,
but when Mitt has supporters its a jerryrigged game?
When Mitt name-drops Dobson that is pandering, but when Fred mentions praying the first hour in the white house that is genuine?
The 'stepford' comment is another example. What exactly does that mean? Is being well groomed, happy, and clean-cut looking a bad thing?
I'm not there, haven't seen the speeches, but just reading your comment I get a sense you are reaching for something to complain about because you've decided you dont or shouldnt support Romney and are not recognizing the double standard you are applying.
Having workers passing out literature and buttons or trying to persuade people is one thing. I expect all campaigns to do that. But, busing people into a neutral setting to try and manipulate crowd response and getting your people to pack a straw poll meant to get the objective views of an undecided group is something else. You win support through persuasion, not manipulation. I believe that Thompson was sincere because I think that one of the first things any religious person WOULD do is ask for God's help if placed in the situation of being President. Publically praising someone whose endorsement you want multiple times in a major speech -- yes, I call that pandering. What would you call it? And of course I believe that being well-groomed, happy, and clean-cut is a good thing. I called Romney a "Stepford Candidate" because he consistently comes across to me as artifical and insincere. My instinct says not to trust him and my instincts about people are usually right. I came into this process open to anyone. On the surface, Romney's experience and voiced opinions looked good. But the further I looked at him and his history, the more bad feelings I got. I could live with Giuliani if I had to, but would rather not have to. He's too "New York" for my taste. I could have supported McCain but he's just gone rogue too may times in too many areas for me to trust him again. I finally came to the conclusion that, for me, the best candidate was Thompson. I took the time to read as many of his columns and listen to as many of his radio commentaries and old Senate speeches as I could, and decided that his positions fit mine and that I believed that he is sincere. I just wish he could be the Thompson on the stump that I saw in those older speeches. Rust has to be chopped off, I guess.
is slyly but defintely slanted to the left? If not, try to find any positive reference to a Republican candidate there that doesn't include a disclaimer of some sort.
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."
POed and all worked up over it. Don't vote for Mitt. Pick someone else and work to get him elected.
Mitt’s church, the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) has been often misunderstood by Evangelical preachers in the past . . Some accused the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . .
http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early (First Century) Christianity's theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. Mitt’s church believes in the Jesus of the New Testament, who prayed to his Father in Heaven in the Garden of Gethsemane, not the Jesus portrayed in the creeds of the 4th Century.
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian (New Testament) theology more closely than other Christian denominations. . Perhaps the reason Evangelical preachers promoted this mis-representation was to protect their flock (and their livlihood). It is encouraging to note that Evangelical preachers appear now to have a moral and competent president as a priority..
There were plenty of times in the New Testament that Jesus pointed out that He and the Father were ONE. The nature of Jesus as both God and man must adhere to a single divine essence for the formula of salvation to work. If God the Father and God the Son are two separate beings, then the statement that God made about one God is a fallacy and God does not err. They assert that Jesus is a created divine being (the son of the Father), and that He is the brother of Lucifer. Yet, John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That does not mean that He was a created being unified in purpose with the Father but that He is embodiment of God, equal, co-eternal. Instead of thinking of them as separate beings of one purpose, think of them as one being with different purposes, Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. As to the incidences where the three were present in seemingly different forms there are two points. One, God is omni-present and can be in three places at once, two, the purpose of those three manifestations from the perspective of witnesses had a huge impact on them. At Jesus' baptism, the Father makes a statement to exert authority and power in the presence of those who may have thought they were equals with this man called Jesus, and the Holy Spirit descended as a dove to show them the institution of the power of baptism, a new life raised from the death of the old Adam. There was a purpose to separate manifestations, not because they are separate beings perse, but that they were separate in purpose, but one Being.
Furthermore, there is no historicity to the assertions Joseph Smith made about an ancient Jewish group coming to North America or that Jesus Himself came to the Americas after the resurrection. For any of that to work for him, it had to be added via other writings (The Book of Mormon, etc...) The bottom line is that mormons are polytheistic regardless of their claims of "one purpose", and their church is based on deceptions and lies about history. Why is it that they must add to the Bible and diminish it to the point of minor frivolity compared to their other books?
Is there "historicity" that ancient Hebrews were in Egypt?
If so, please point me to where I might find a source on that.
As for your assertion that "mormons are polytheistic," you are mistaken.
Mormonism has always been a monotheistic religion. We worship the God that Jesus prayed to when he taught the Lord's Prayer. When he taught men to pray, "Our Father Who Art in Heaven," who was Jesus praying to at that time? Himself?
Absurd!
Romney/Thompson 2008
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm
BTW: Google is your friend.
Monotheism is the theory of worshiping/serving one deity. So, if Mormonism is monotheistic, then which is worshiped, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit? From the Mormon point of view these are three separate beings, correct? Or is some united purpose of God what is worshiped as was mentioned in a message below, three beings, with one purpose? To me, it seems that if you worship the three beings as defined by the Mormon church, which is different from the Trinity concept as formulated by christians long ago, you are polytheistic because they are not one God. If you worship the purpose, then you are not worshiping God at all, and have created an idol.
In regard to the Lord's Prayer, Jesus, for one, was teaching. He did that from time to time. Second, He was praying as was required by God of all men. Remember, He, being fully man at the same time as fully God, was still beholden to the law of God. By completely obeying the law, even unto death, He fulfilled the sentence laid upon our shoulders. He was at the mercy of the authority of God even though He was God. Another example would be that God, while having the ability to step in and negate any natural law he set up in this universe, for the most part does not, for a plethora of reasons which I won't expound on here.
The absurdity here is your assertion that God is not big enough to do all of the things He did as Jesus while still being the Authority of all things and Creator and Sanctifier and Counselor. He is one, true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
is the dumbess thing I have ever heard. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit being seperate in purpose? You mentioned that Jesus pointed out many times in the New Testament that they are ONE. Here is a great example of that from his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane-
(Before anything else, according to you he is praying to himself here)
John 17: 11, 21-23
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
• • •
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
I guess he wanted his disciples to be one big mass of conjoined stuff? No. He wanted them to be one in purpose so "the world may know that thou (God) hast sent me (Jesus)" I guess the concept of a team is too much for you. Your reasoning behind the 3 different manifestations at the baptism makes no sense and I've never heard any one say that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were "seperate in purpose" Please show me one place in the Bible that says that the Holy Spirit "shows them the institution of the power of baptism, a new life raised from the death of the old Adam"
By the way, John 1:1 that you used? look at the second line. "The Word was with God" But yet you choose to pick the very last line alone "The Word was God" and presume to expound upon it's meaning as if God himself have given you the authority to do so. I would ask you where you got your authority to interpret God's will from the Bible for his children here on Earth but I know you have none.
I know this does no good at helping you because you are already locked into your narrow view but I just had to see how you would interpret for the people what Christ was saying about his disciples in his prayer.
Good luck to you and the Fred Thompson campaign.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
...is that public brawling over the precise nature of the Trinity is an exceptionally rare event. Can we possibly keep to that tradition?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I couldn't resist a challenge to something I feel strongly about.
I feel strongly about it also. But we have enough controversy discussing politics here...adding religion would just make everyone's heads explode...
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
It ends now. We have a rule against it, especially where Presidential candidates and their religious traditions are concerned; that some of your accounts postdate the announcement of that rule, and that we sometimes let that go too slack, doesn't mean the rule is in abeyance.
The next attempt to ignore this rule will result in banning.
I presume I'm extraordinarily clear.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
...at doing more damage to your candidate than anyone who disagrees could possibly do.
And no, I'm NOT against Romney. I'm not specifically FOR him either though, and your comment is the most damaging to him.
The question of whether Mormons are Christians or not is a banned topic on Redstate, per Thomas's ruling. It's a purely religious topic, not a political one. Nor is the argument likely to enhance a political alliance.
A little more enforcement would be appreciated.
Complaints like that should go in the contact form, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
lost my temper a bit at the thought of going through all this again.
are comments like E.R.R's in #65 that ones church is based on deceptions and lies. Didn't think RS would allow such garbage.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I'm a Christian. Raised in a Christian home.
And this year I feel like Christians are the most persuadable demographic there is. If you say "strong family", "Defend values", Christians will drool all over themselves and feel like a president can bring a nation closer to God.
FYI: Romney is not our savior. So stop drooling...
own arrogant superiority complex
In Christ
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
and it's that kind of attitude that is going to convince Christians to stay home. We need to have a coalition of all of our forces including those with whom you seem to have no respect.
Christians are just like the rest of Americans in that a large percentage of them don't keep up with current events like us political junkies here on the web, unfortunately.
Embryonic cloning is one of the first steps in embryonic stem-cell research. Prohibit one and you prohibit the other.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
is against butt cleavage....we have our answer?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Now addressing that as a presidential issue shows how fake he is. There are plenty of commercially available filters parents can get to do this...why government needs to get involved is beyond me.
"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand